"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
1. no obscene user names; and
Perhaps we should cc our definition of obscene
to those fools in the U.S. Judicial branch and Congress.
2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Where should we document these rules?
Personally I do not think the mailing list is adequate
ratification to reduce future problems of this nature.
This is sort of our existing process is it not?
The mailing list advises Mr. Wales.
Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who:
* announces from the outset that our project is doomed
If he is right and articulates clearly why he is right
then we can take action to avoid our phophecised fate.
* makes no constructive suggestions of his own
I thought I saw some constructive suggestions implicit
in some of his actions and statements.
* demands power -- but won't say why
A reason is needed to scratch an itch?
We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still
fresh in our minds.
Agreed. Also, documentation from previous
incidents may exist in the mailing list archives
should we decide to get systematic or pedantic
with regard to any reengineering of existing processes.
Regards,
Mike Irwin