On 10/31/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
However, if you think we should act contrary to policy, _changing the policy_ rather than asserting it's overly zealous may be the better way of going about it.
Exactly. Rather than getting mad at people for enforcing a fairly clear policy, discuss it on the policy page.
On 10/31/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Politeness is. Informing people why he is doing things is elementary politeness. Checking facts rather than blanket unexplained deletions is elementary. And evidence that he actually knows what he is doing is a help.
"Informing people" -- ahead of time or afterwards? We can't inform every interested party before we enforce a policy (whether you disagree with it or not is unimportant in this instance). First off, we don't know necessarily know who those people are. Second, they aren't necessarily the people whose authority matters in respect to policy or legal issues. Third, interested parties will notice changes made and will, ideally, inquire as to why they are being made. Nothing is permanent here, so no real harm is done.
FF