Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Birgitte SB wrote:
Almost all rules should be open to change, because a
community thrives
on new ideas. Very few rules should be the subject
of persistent enforcement.
I believe you misunderstand me here. I strongly
believe that most policies should be up for
reevaluation. Many things seem like great ideas, or
seem as though they would naturally go hand in hand
until you actually start *working* on them. Newcomers
who active on a project are certainly welcome in my
view. I see them as future established users. I
think you have hit the nail on the head with "Good
rules support existing practice rather than shape it."
The problem with the original suggestion is such
advertisement would atract people who have no
understanding of existing practice. That is my
concern. I feel anyone familar with existing practice
will be aware of policy disscussion through the normal
in-project channels.
Fair enough.
I have not really experienced "unending debates
about
policy". Most proposals actually need little debate
at all. Maybe that is a scale issue. I really am
open to hear anyone interested in Wikisource to come
add a voice to policy discussions. But I would expect
them to keep an eye on the Scriptorium. Most
everything that applies to Wikisource on a broader
sense is disscused there. Maybe I am wrong, but
imagine a large scale advertisment would attract
people who are more interested that Wikisource does
something they believe it should than *how* it does
something. I am very much interested in the more
pragmatic input which I believe requires some
familarity with how Wikisource operates.
Maybe we're not as far apart as I suspected. All the more reason to sit
down for a chat in Boston. :-)
Ec