On 5/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
3. Process is good, so we should not proceed without
along the way.
As long as people give any weight to presedent this one is pretty much
imposble to avoid.
4. If a process exists, it must be followed because
it's a process.
However much of wikipedia process exists for a reason. Please respect
that reason and understand the people who came up with probably put a
fair bit of thought into its desighn
2. Process is good, but more process is *BAD*. Process
bindweed and must be culled regularly. Anyone who says "process is
important" must read and understand [[m:Instruction creep]].
Since m:Instruction creep relates to process they probably have. The
broad principle is correct (although I quite like our overgrown and
contradictory guidelines it means it is almost imposible to produce a
solid case based on them to stop me doing what I want to do) the
anicdote doesn't tend to apply wikipedia (It is generaly less complex
to remove someone from wikipedia rather than get a new policy
3. Grey areas exist; the human brain exists to deal
with them. You
can't Taylorise clue.
However you can produce rigidly defined areas of doubt and
uncertainty. It is possible to define where the grey areas are.
4. Processes are frequently written up to try to win
This is part of how process grows like bindweed.
I find they are generaly writen by well meaning people. The trick is
squashing the idea without squashing the person.
Process is important. It is also dangerous, and must
be kept strictly
under control and rebuilt regularly. AND NO I'M NOT GOING TO WRITE UP
A PROCESS FOR THAT.
So would you support protecting all policy pages (have you seen the
edit rate on CSD?)?