| Revision as of 17:12, 27 June 2008 editFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits →Amount to digest: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:28, 27 June 2008 edit undoAli'i (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,404 edits →Amount to digest: 1 more QNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Was any thought given to breaking these up and slowly introducing them for the community's response? As it stands, I may be alone, but I would guess I am not, I am having a difficult time getting my head around all of the announcements. The scope of these announcments is very wide, and it will take some time to digest each piece. I'm afraid things will be hidden among the fine print that would have otherwise been discussed properly as a community. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just wondering if it wouldn't have been better to split some of these up. --] 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | Was any thought given to breaking these up and slowly introducing them for the community's response? As it stands, I may be alone, but I would guess I am not, I am having a difficult time getting my head around all of the announcements. The scope of these announcments is very wide, and it will take some time to digest each piece. I'm afraid things will be hidden among the fine print that would have otherwise been discussed properly as a community. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just wondering if it wouldn't have been better to split some of these up. --] 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| : Each is in itself, very tightly focussed and fairly small. They are very independent, each targetting a specific issue we can see. It is a lot, people'll be digesting them a while, and we ourselves won't be rushing in to them. But as for announcing them, as described (and for the other reasons given, we don't want this to be habitual)... the announcing is probably best done together, so people can read, digest, discuss and absorb a bit, see them together in context, knowing that's what there is. Thank you, a good question. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | : Each is in itself, very tightly focussed and fairly small. They are very independent, each targetting a specific issue we can see. It is a lot, people'll be digesting them a while, and we ourselves won't be rushing in to them. But as for announcing them, as described (and for the other reasons given, we don't want this to be habitual)... the announcing is probably best done together, so people can read, digest, discuss and absorb a bit, see them together in context, knowing that's what there is. Thank you, a good question. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'm just concerned a tad since multiple items (correct me if I'm wrong on these... the appeals committee thing and the checkuser expansion) have a date of July 2nd on them (as in, <s>users</s>admins have until then to email the Knott to be considered). Perhaps I'm reading these wrong, but a week really isn't ''that'' long to discuss and digest these 2 items as well as the other 4 or 5 things listed. | |||
| ::I understand the reasoning (not wanting this to be a habit), but that doesn't stop me from feeling rushed. And some of these (the orangemarlin case) could have been presented by themselves (i.e. they don't need the "context"). Thanks for putting up with my questions. --] 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:28, 27 June 2008
Thank you
This is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. Thanks for not insulting our intelligence by pretending this is a solution to a specific case brought before you. Thank you for rising to the needs of restructuring the governance structure of Misplaced Pages. The community will, of course, ratify or not ratify specific aspects as we go along and you will of course adjust this reorganization in accordance with community opinion and what you think is or is not working. Jimbo is no longer owner of the servers nor is he part of the day to day transparent governance. Arbcom has replaced Jimbo in the guidance of the governance of the English language Misplaced Pages. Thank you for moving us forward. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Amount to digest
Was any thought given to breaking these up and slowly introducing them for the community's response? As it stands, I may be alone, but I would guess I am not, I am having a difficult time getting my head around all of the announcements. The scope of these announcments is very wide, and it will take some time to digest each piece. I'm afraid things will be hidden among the fine print that would have otherwise been discussed properly as a community. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just wondering if it wouldn't have been better to split some of these up. --Ali'i 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Each is in itself, very tightly focussed and fairly small. They are very independent, each targetting a specific issue we can see. It is a lot, people'll be digesting them a while, and we ourselves won't be rushing in to them. But as for announcing them, as described (and for the other reasons given, we don't want this to be habitual)... the announcing is probably best done together, so people can read, digest, discuss and absorb a bit, see them together in context, knowing that's what there is. Thank you, a good question. FT2 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just concerned a tad since multiple items (correct me if I'm wrong on these... the appeals committee thing and the checkuser expansion) have a date of July 2nd on them (as in,
usersadmins have until then to email the Knott to be considered). Perhaps I'm reading these wrong, but a week really isn't that long to discuss and digest these 2 items as well as the other 4 or 5 things listed.
- I'm just concerned a tad since multiple items (correct me if I'm wrong on these... the appeals committee thing and the checkuser expansion) have a date of July 2nd on them (as in,
- I understand the reasoning (not wanting this to be a habit), but that doesn't stop me from feeling rushed. And some of these (the orangemarlin case) could have been presented by themselves (i.e. they don't need the "context"). Thanks for putting up with my questions. --Ali'i 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)