--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, I re-iterate that I consider that this doesn't need to set any kind of precedent. If there is a "next time", simply visit it again as we are doing now, and hey, if it's a different issue where everyone is baying for blood, take serious action. There's no specific reason not to treat things on a case by case basis. And it's not "unfair", because if the "next time" is worse, then it deserves to be treated differently.
Things have a way of setting precedent whether we want them to or not. If nothing else, letting this stand without some sort of response has the effect of setting the precedent that future cases will be handled after-the-fact as well.
We don't need to do anything until after a major problem has already happened? We don't need to do anything unless some future case turns out to be a problem?
We don't need to fix the intersection until people actually die in an accident?
I don't think we necessarily need to make a formal policy about this, but we should make it very clear that this sort of behavior requires _prior_ discussion and consensus.
-Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:user:rholton)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com