On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Asap stands for "as soon as possible". It is obvious that there I do not like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to replace them tomorrow.
I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely get rid of talk pages and understand what it is EXACTLY what the cost benefit is of such a change. When you talk about "detailed watchlists" in the context of Talk pages I have no clue what you are on about. It does not make sense to me at all.
When a specific way of working insists on talk pages, it means that the associated workflow has to be revisited and changed with urgency. It cannot be permitted that special interests take the whole of the much needed change hostage. "Leaving this material unchecked ..." is FUD. It is not an argument that prevents change, at most it means that a different mechanism has to be designed for that special interest. Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
It would really help me if you would go a little lower on the hyperbole. As soon as possible is indeed not tomorrow. It's today. Only we both agree that would be a very bad idea. What you probably mean is "As soon as a reasonable replacement for processes and talk pages can be found" - but when I phrase it like that, it becomes open for discussion what that reasonable replacement could be. It makes it very hard to keep taking your posts seriously if you keep speaking in such hyperbole.
--Martijn
I've got to +1 Martijn on this one. But I'm a little more concerned with "cut the crap," because "the crap" could easily be interpreted as other people's ideas. While this kind of language is rather mild compared to some other posts I've seen to this list, I think that it is imperative that we all stay constructive and open to each other's ideas when we talk about Flow. Flow needs a deep and broad community consensus to what would probably amount to the biggest single change in the history of the project for the day-to-day collaboration amongst editors that is so vital to our success. Let's face it, the kind of challenge ahead is something this community hasn't surmounted in the last few years, and so far people on this list has done a great job staying constructive in the discussion.
I want discussion oriented software to happen. Gerard, your messages have great substance that can get us closer to our goal. Please don't push it out of reach because of something as easy to change as style. Thanks in advance for considering the rest of us who'd like to see this happen in your posts.
And thanks for the forbearance of everyone else. The sooner meta-discussions about the nature of our discourse are unnecessary, the happier I'll be, as I'll feel like I can afford to spend all of my post allowance on the actual substance of the issues.
,Wil