Sean Barrett a écrit:
Yann Forget stated for the record:
Hi,
Le Friday 3 June 2005 19:44, Sean Barrett a écrit : [...]
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
That exactly what happens *now*. Complains come (from French speaking people) to wikifr-l and random users answer. Not good. I think that David's request is very well needed.
It appears that you did not read what I wrote. How does having "random users answer" consititute an "officially approved channel"?
Being able to dismiss a stupid or offensive answer as having come from a random user of a public mailing list renders the Foundation immune to suits, not more vulnerable.
-- Sean Barrett | Aw, Mom, you act like I'm not even sean@epoptic.com | wearing a bungee cord! --Calvi n
Hi Sean
The main difference is make is this one
* if some one answers very quietly, with no usage of slightly offensive words or without dismissing the complainer request, that makes no difference at all, as usually the issue is fixed amiably.
* if some one (whoever) makes a rude, or agressive, or dismissive answer, the complainer is obviously very displeased; and usually his tone gets less pleasant; What was before just a question becomes a request. What was a request becomes a legal action. So, of course, in front of a tribunal, what the first random person answered will not be used against us, but if he had never made the first answer, we would possibly not be in tribunal... I go a bit far, but the problem is generally that when someone was greatly upsetted by a first inappropriate answer, it takes a *lot* more effort to reach a quiet agreement.
Ant