--- Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
While it's nice that Mav is happy about this,
I'm still somewhat annoyed.
Well I'm not happy - just *OK* with the outcome. The in-between stuff was
rather unpleasant though.
It's clear that there was no consensus in the
community for this. If there was a discussion on meta, I haven't seen
it, so it would only be those people who are subscribed to the list
that would've known about this. It's also apparent that even on the
list, Mav wasn't the only one with objections.
Turns out that most of those objections were considered and a compromise plan
created based on that. The trouble was a complete lack of communication
informing everybody about this.
I do agree that more people should have been involved and more time given.
Saying things like 'most people wouldn't get the idea so let's not bother
about it' is kinda paternalist, IMO. If consensus could not be reached, we
could have a Wikimedia-wide vote where people could choose 1 to 5 for each
1 (strongly disagree),
2 (somewhat disagree),
3 (don't know, don't care),
4 (somewhat agree), and
5 (strongly agree).
So the people who don't know or don't care about that question will not mess up
the results one way or another by that fact.
But because the three
or four proponents of this shouted him (and others) down more vocally,
it seems the board decides to go off and do their own thing. I don't
make the accusation that it was underhanded, but at the same time, I
hope it won't be something that's repeated.
Actually I thought is was more the other way around... :)
If there is a non-forking policy, where is it, and why
haven't I heard
of it until now? If there is conditions placed on the creation of
Wikispecies, what were they? Disclosure, people, disclosure.
Due to miscommunication it isn't easy to find. But here you go:
-- mav (aka Daniel Mayer)
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!