On 26/02/17 18:21, MZMcBride wrote:
Then you and others should have no problem providing specific examples. I'd like to see links to Gerrit changesets and Phabricator tasks where this new policy and its committee would help. If you want to make claims of serious unacknowledged problems, substantiate them with evidence. This is exactly the same burden of proof you would expect from anyone else.
MZMcBride
I've asked for this before, but got nothing but hypotheticals. It's hard to weigh in on a document that does not cite specific examples, with context, of what it seeks to address. When designing anything - processes, software, architecture - you need to know your use cases in order to properly address them. We spent months researching what the users were actually doing, and the problems they were running into, before we started making anything for WikiProject X. For every decision we made, we can point to examples on-wiki of the trends that led us to this; or the software limitations; or the fact that it actually was kind of arbitrary, and that if any actual reasons to change it are provided, this can totally be done.
And this Code of Conduct is much bigger, in both scope and likely impact, than WikiProject X.
-I