[WikiEN-l] One-sentence explanation of pending changes

[William Pietri]

On 06/09/2010 12:39 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>    
>> Our current plan is to raise that limit gradually as the performance
>> implications become clear. If the community wants us to keep some hard
>> limit, that's also doable.
>>      
> With the utmost of respect, what you want to do here is to
> hew very close to the community agreed consensus, and only
> depart after a new consensus develops. Going purely on what
> the iron will stand in terms of load, is a surefire way to bring
> about much drama and wringing of hands, heads and what
> have you. Not a desirable thing at all.
>
> I think I can encapsulate my advice in one sentence.
>
> "Please don't plan controversial things."
>
>    


Hi! I'm not quite following this.

As far as I know, the community hasn't requested any numerical limits on 
the number of pages under Pending Changes. (If I got that wrong, please 
do point me to the page that says otherwise.) So to my mind, hewing 
closely to the agreed consensus would be to remove the limit as fast as 
we feel technically safe, allowing the community full reign to decide 
which pages get covered.

However, your notion that a limit would reduce the potential for drama 
is reasonable. If you'd like to wrangle consensus on the right numeric 
limit and the procedure for changing it, we'd be glad to keep the hard 
limit at the lower of the technical limit and the community limit.

William