Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Perfectly reasonable. Absolutely commendable. Why on earth would we like to ensure that, particularly *before* point d) ? I can fully understand that there is a contingent who devoutly hopes that after the current strictly limited use of FR is tried out and people gain more familiarity with the interface and the practical way the extension works, much of the mystique of it will vanish in a puff of smoke and people will be more amenable to extending its use. Nevertheless in reality the current compromise proposal owes much to people who were able to only accept it with the proviso that quite the opposite of wanting to see it be possible to scale up, they required a reasonable assurance that its use would *not* be escalated without an overwhelming community consensus. Not doing d) before being sure of c) seems very much like putting the cart before the horse to me. Whether c) will be relevant at all would necessarily be contingent on the success of d), and the logical order thus should be to just do d) and see later if there is any relevance to c) at all. Or to put it more plainly; it is a very remote possibility indeed that extending the Flagged Revision experiment in a form that ordinary articles would only display an approved revision (without very strict restrictions on which articles to apply this requirement to) for many people will be something they will accept. So making it a prerequisite that such an application has to be functionally available in the extension for uses as large as the English wikipedia before *any* use of the extension, is rather silly as a concept. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Absolutely commendable. Why on earth would we like to ensure that, particularly *before* point d) ?

Not doing d) before being sure of c) seems very much like putting the cart before the horse to me. Whether c) will be relevant at all would necessarily be contingent on the success of d), and the logical order thus should be to just do d) and see later if there is any relevance to c) at all.