--- Zoney <zoney.ie(a)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
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
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
-Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:user:rholton)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around