Hoi, When relatively irrelevant things are discussed I switch off. What is of relevance to me is that a global arbitration com is about meta considerations. I do not care for individual people complaining about whatever. What is of relevance to me is how to deal with PROJECTS that are considered to be problematic. How we are to define where the self determination of projects stops and where global values take precedence. When an arbcom is dealing with that, I am very eager to see this happen. When it does not deal with this, it is for me mostly a waste of time and effort. Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 5, 2008 7:49 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l