David Goodman wrote:
I accept this criterion as necessary. And so the
repeated AfDs on the
most important issues with contradictory results are proof of the
system's failure.
On 6/27/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The only workable concept of consensus I've
ever discovered is
stability. If hundreds of people edit a piece of work in good faith
over a long period, what changes least over time may be presumed to be
there by consensus. However even the most apparently stable elements
of a work may be deposed quite easily. The result may be a new
consensus or, in other cases, a period of instability where the new
version and the old version compete.
Only if one takes the premise that consensus can never change. I've seen
many AfDs where the first result was "Keep and clean up", "keep and
source", "keep and rewrite so it's NPOV", etc. By the time it's on
the
second or third go-round, and nothing after the "and" has actually
gotten done (or is being actively resisted), some who argued that way
actually change their mind and argue to delete.