Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 17:12, 27 June 2008 (→Amount to digest: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:12, 27 June 2008 by FT2 (talk | contribs) (→Amount to digest: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)