[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and deleted article

[Milos Rancic]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
> make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
>
> 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>
>
>> (Actually, I have a couple of
>> possible changes in my mind, which are not radical. However, their
>> implementation would need radical changes. Because of bureaucracy.)

Asking such question is not constructive, as well as it is aggressive
if you take in count that I am sharing my ideas even I don't think
that they will have a lot of chances for success. It is very different
from asking the same question someone who use it as an argument in
discussions; as well as it is very different if such question comes
from the side of foundation-l participant who is new and who doesn't
know behavior of other participants.

Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
limit. Probably, it won't be a big deal for me to pass that limit and
to go to moderation, but I agreed that some measures should be imposed
on the list and that moderators should articulate them. Also, I think
that those measures are reasonable and I want to follow them. That
means that I don't want to send more than one email per day. As I
wrote an email today and I am wasting another on this discussion, that
means that I will give to the list the next constructive input the day
after tomorrow. (I was preparing email for tomorrow for the topic
which I previously started.) So, in fact, with this question you are
blocking constructive discussion at this list.

Your question leads to a meta-discussion about my personality and my
motives, which is a light version of ad hominem attack. This kind of
behavior is aggressive. Besides that, it leads into dead end because I
already concluded that I don't want to share those my ideas here and
now exactly because of reason which I gave; which means that your
question has another not constructive feature. (Not to talk that your
question wastes my time, as well as time of those who read our two
emails.)

If I have some very good idea (or, at least, the idea for which I
think that it is [very] good) how to remove the unnecessary
bureaucracy (which shouldn't be confused with necessary bureaucracy),
I would give it, of course. However, during writing previous email,
I've got some particular ideas related to some of the negative trends.
Unfortunately, those ideas can't be implemented because of bureaucracy
(or, at least, I think so). Which means that they are not worth of
spending time in explaining them (one email of such length per idea;
maybe even some longer discussion about some of them) now and here.