[WikiEN-l] A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l

[Luna]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:53 AM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Luna<lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's almost as if the vast bulk of discussion takes place on the wiki, or
> > something.
>
> So, anyway, no. High level dispute resolution deliberations don't seem
> to happen on the wiki, and this has brought about a general lack of
> responsiveness, and has also negated open discussion itself to a
> certain degree.


My points are easier to refute when you change them, yes. I didn't say
"arbcom", I said "vast bulk". Arbcom is involved in only a tiny fraction of
disputes, and then only after prior resolution mechanisms have failed.
Unless you're suggesting this mailing list would replace arbcom, I can't say
that I'm sure what you're getting at, there.


> > That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
> > earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
> > Personally, I think it sounds likely to fragment discussion and encourage
> > forum shopping, aside from giving people the feeling they've been run
> around
> > -- even if you personally have a firm idea of the list's remit, other
> people
> > will not.
>
> An open mailing list for dispute resolution will bring about greater
> openness and wikilove.


How? What will it add that the wiki and current mailing lists cannot? You've
argued that we should centralize discussion, and then you propose
fragmenting it with a new list. I'm not sure if I can follow that.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to start discussion here, and fork in the event
that discussion overwhelms other list traffic?


>
> > Your increasingly incessant personal attacks and use of the royal "we" --
> > what else could you be referring to? -- are a but off-putting, as well.
>
> I appreciate the fact that someone perceived as making personal
> attacks will be chastised by you and others, but the fact of the
> matter is that I have never made any personal attacks against Cary or
> anyone else in this matter. A couple sarcastic or pointy responses to
> similarly sarcastic or rude commentary do not qualify. Your
> "incessant" term is a gross mischaracterization.


Interesting that you deny making any personal attacks, and yet you
immediately leap to defend specific comments, as if you knew exactly which
ones I might be referring to. Hm!

Anyway, you seem to have knocked that off lately. Thanks.

-Luna