Steinsplitter, if you're interested in reviving this, please have the intellectual honesty of running the RfC again and publicizing it widely. As others already pointed out, the context of that RfC is nothing like today. Not only Media Viewer itself changed a lot, with many fixes based on direct community feedback, but the very people who expressed their opinion in 2014 might have changed their views.
If anything, if you still get the same outcome now, you'll have a much stronger case for what you're asking for.
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2016 23:47, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2016 at 22:12, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
On 16-03-14 05:01 PM, Vi to wrote:
Ignoring a wide community consensus is *always* a mistake.
It is. I never advocated otherwise.
That old RfC, however, does not show a wide community consensus, let alone a consensus of the actually impacted community.
-- Coren / Marc
You could walk in the shoes of others, as Jimbo advocates, and you could create an RFC to show whether users prefer it, rather than putting the burden of proof onto a community that has already established what it wanted.
Marc just look at the German Wikipedia which recently voted for the switch on of visual editor. It was community driven and caused no stir.
I really fail to understand that you guys always go down a confrontational path instead of inventing a solution so all users have the option to choose. Maybe a media tab or similar.
Rupert
Rupert _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe