From my point of view. The commons projekt ist an old one, older than most of people who working on de.ws. The rules to have an account on commons 
for uploading was before we started to do so.

Here it'is the other way round. We started the project with a new 'vision' at the beginning of 2006 by forcing to have scan's for all texts (some of the older ones are still lacking, I know that. But we are seraching for the scans) and a two staged proof reading process in a free community where everybody could edit and cotribute IP or with a nick We had a first different verion of the proofread free for all. This proofread II extension came up free for al js-based. And after some struggle we accepted the technical better solution. When we had accepted the technical solution, the programmer started up to put constraints on the technical good solution. Excluding IP's, defining more and more hard coded  rules,   because he was in fear of vandalism. When we found ways around his contraints on js-level, he put the next constraints on a different level. Every time we had big discussions with him. 

His constraints are  hampering the process of converting older project to PR II. The only answer is. ok thats true, use a bot and let a bot make the second proofread process. Excellent solution. 

And in his last answer, he says there maybe a way around but you have to find him yourself, find you a programmer to do it there may be there are some js people around at de.ws, .  What will be the situation with his next update, will our solution still work, or will he have changed things in a way, that we can't use our changes anymore as usuall. And what are the drawbacks of the workaround's Can we use the index page as we do it now, can we use the special index page with the projects. Both are interesting things and helpfull. 

And with this experience an such attitudes, you are talking about our attitudes, teak?

Greetings





2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki@gmail.com>
Well... I don't know about reading between the lines, but you seem to
not be able to read the lines. I criticized the attitude (with which
the issue is presented) in the general mailing list, not the relevance
of the issue itself.

I guess it's perfectly OK in the de.ws community to use this attitude,
since as was mentioned the view represents the community consensus.
But, at least in my book, it's not too smart to call a policy that
every other wikisource community is content with "Orwellian", "control
freak", "or so" in the general wikisource mailing list (read, among
others, by very people who you call control freaks) and expect helpful
feedback. And yes, such insults do not belong in the mailing list to
which users sign up with expectations of constructive discussions,
where respect toward others' opinions is a priory assumed, even if
strong disagreements persist. That's my definition of general.


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Cecil <cecilatwp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, your attitude isn't any better or do you think we can't read between
> the rows. Good to know that our issues are not for the ''general''
> wikisource list. So we've learned at least that only general stuff belongs
> to this list and our issues are not general. Would you please tell us your
> definition of 'general'. Is it only everything that you consider acceptable,
> everybody else is not welcome? Sorry, but shitty attitude.
>
> Cecil
>
>
> 2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki@gmail.com>
>>
>> And I don't think the attitude of the de.ws spokespeople is very
>> helpful for their cause either. That's all my message was meant to
>> convey... but goodluck garnering helpful answers. I, for one, would
>> like to see this issue solved, so that this collective attitude of
>> "de.ws community consensus" can finally get off the lawn of the
>> general wikisource mailing list.
>>
>> teak
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > 2009/10/29 teak <teak.wiki@gmail.com>:
>> >> way to label those who do not agree with your ideas...
>> >>
>> >> There is a need for a law on comparisons to "Orwellian" these days, a
>> >> la Godwin's.
>> >>
>> >> teak
>> >
>> > I do not think that this answer is very helpful. You can substitute
>> > "Orwellian" with "control freak" or so.
>> >
>> > Joergens has written for the consensus of the German Wikisource
>> > community.
>> >
>> > Klaus Graf
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikisource-l mailing list
>> > Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikisource-l mailing list
>> Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikisource-l mailing list
> Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikisource-l mailing list
Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l