On 17/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/17/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:>
You mean, rather than just lower the now-ridiculous requirements at RFA?
That approach has a record of at least 2 years of total failure.
I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as well.
- d.
On 17/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as well.
I find it ironic that those who are saying loudest that we should let bureaucrats make "the right decision" are so keen on telling them how to do it. Let them judge the votes since it's their job, and we know they're not stupid.
On 17/04/07, the wub thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On 17/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'm now going through the RFAs noting opposes that are irrelevant to the question "is this user safe with the tools? are they going to go nuts?" and suggesting they be ignored. Others are welcome to do so as well.
I find it ironic that those who are saying loudest that we should let bureaucrats make "the right decision" are so keen on telling them how to do it. Let them judge the votes since it's their job, and we know they're not stupid.
I'm not telling the bureaucrats so much as I'm telling the people being silly.
- d.