No, I said that if a technical change was required and would impact the
entire community, then the entire community should agree.
PS: from a personal point of view, I think one month and a half is a
hell of a long time :-)
effe iets anders wrote:
I think anthere tried to explain that those changes
have to be made on every
wiki. Not technically, but regarding policy. If I read correct, the
foundtaion wants that the technical side of every language project is about
the same, to make it easy to switch from one project to another.
In that case, I would like to add that the move page functionality should be
given to both users with a certain time of existance, but also to sysops.
That is because of the stewards, reverting vandalism on small wiki's then.
But that might be logical anyway. I think in that case two weeks makes more
sense then one and a half month. That is imho just far too long. In one
month a person is usually able to vote in votes, and is already sometimes
part of the hardcore community. Two weeks might even be too long.
2007/2/20, Titoxd@Wikimedia <titoxd.wikimedia(a)gmail.com>om>:
>Well, this is a technical change to one site's configuration of a
>similar to adding an extra namespace to a wiki. More technically, it means
>modifying one wiki's LocalSettings.php file. I'm not entirely sure how
>changing $wgAutoConfirmAge on pt.wikipedia.org
>for example. Technically, those settings are completely independent of one
>another, as they reside on separate files. The only way one wiki's
>requests affect everyone is when there is something *added* to MediaWiki,
>and those effects are due to a new setting added to MediaWiki's
>DefaultSettings.php file. As this isn't the case, since the functionality
>already there (that's the reason there's a four-day page-move restriction
>*all* Wikimedia wikis), changing it on one should not affect the other
>I'm not sure if Anthere's worry is that a setting of 45 days in pt: will
>mean changing the setting to 45 days everywhere else, but if that is it,
>then there is no reason to worry. Looking at the code, there is absolutely
>no reason why the change would impact other wikis outside the Portuguese
>[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Anthere
>Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:17 PM
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page
>Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>First, having a software displaying different behavior depending on the
>>>language/project is a bad idea. It makes things very complex and users
>>>travelling from one language to another are likely to find this
>>That same logic could be used to say all languages should have the
>>same system for RFA, AFD, etc. It was decided a long time ago that
>>different languages would be allowed to decide their own policies.
>>Policies which are enforced by the software are no different from any
>No, it is not the same. Policies with social implications (such as RFA,
>AFD) may be developped independently by each community, without having
>any consequences on the choice made by other communities.
>Policies with technical implications may imply that a decision made by
>one community, will be forced over the other communities. This is what
>happened for many many months, as all software evolutions were driven by
>the english community and forced over the other communities along the
>way. We are no more in these times. If a change of software is
>suggested, which could impact all communities, then there must be a
>general agreement that this is a good idea.
>Note that I do not say the suggestion is good or bad. I simply say "do
>not expect a top down decision".
>>Personally, I think 45 days is rather long, and I'm a little
>>uncomfortable with it apparently being handled as a vote (although the
>>results of the vote don't leave much room for interpretation, so it
>>probably makes no difference), but if that's how pt want to do things,
>>it's entirely up to them.
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l mailing list