On 31 July 2013 13:32, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Am 31.07.2013 15:07 schrieb "Risker"
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 31 July 2013 08:36, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >> de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp?
(I'm
> >> asking for a clear objective
criterion here. If you can only offer a
> >> subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
> >> hasn't.)
>
> > Hi David, i am editing on dewp and enwp. I consider myself an
experienced
> > editor, but not an expert. I did not
participate voting in dewp, but
i
> like
> > to try ve from time to time. Beeing a software developper I fully
support
> > eriks arguments before. Imo pragmatic
and flexible decisions help
such
development a lot, just like Erik explained.
Certainly. However, it's the obvious question to ask, and a curious
question to spend several paragraphs not answering.
Erik, James - how did de:wp convinced you when en:wp hasn't?
I would also like to see a direct answer to David's very specific
question.
From a software developers standpoint its nice to have the 2 biggest wikis
following a different strategy. Enwp is enough to get a lot of testers. But
some accommodation of the users comes with it. Switching over wpde later
gets again not accommodated and more critical feedback.
Without rejecting your position, what we really want to hear is Erik
Moeller's reasoning, in his role as VP Engineering. It was Erik's
decision, and we want him to explain his reasoning in his own words.
Risker