The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/12/02 5:26 PM, "Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
The software is already set up for Jimbo's
proposal (all we have to do is turn
on one setting).
This has nothing to do with the merits of the idea.
Not directly, but it is relevant in that we can implement it in 5
minutes time and it requires virtually no commitment of resources to
either make it happen or undo it if we don't like it. Other proposals
for team moderation would require us to commit resources to programming.
(And, as an open source project, we the people who desire change can't
really "commit resources" because the programmers will only do what
they feel like doing anyway. :-))
Cunc, it seems like you're the strongest holdout.
I've got people in private email telling me that it's imperative that
we institute a formal voting procedure, because consensus can't work
in a group of this size. It is claimed that any one person can block
change, even if that one person agrees that the current situation is
not very desirable. I want to prove them wrong, and you can help me in
a pretty obvious way.
:-)
Suppose we commit to a very light moderation, by me, which you said
you could accept, with others helping out by doing approvals of posts.
AND we commit to setting up and testing a bbs system as you've
proposed several times in the past.
We experiment -- wikien-l becomes moderated. wikipedia-l stays
unmoderated and migrates to a bbs/email system. We later revisit the
issue (March 1st, I propose) and see how it's working out in practice.
Some of your objections are concerns I share... for example, under
moderation, the pace of a list is slowed down. But, by how much, and
does it help or hinder productive discussions? That's an empirical
question, and it depends on how many approvers we have and how often
they are logged in, etc.
--Jimbo