| 1 |
On 16/01/2017 05:56, Dean Stephens wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think this proposal is utterly unworkable in practice. While the |
| 3 |
> intention is rather obvious, and heavily geared toward actual |
| 4 |
> contributing members of the community at large, the proposed |
| 5 |
> definitional scope and structure are incompatible with actual workloads |
| 6 |
> already in place. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> [...] |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As it stands, disciplinary actions are handled per medium and channel, |
| 11 |
> with appeals going first to those with direct authority over that medium |
| 12 |
> or channel, then to ComRel, then the Council. This is simple, |
| 13 |
> consistent, and most of all it is on the whole effective; all while |
| 14 |
> minimizing the amount of make work. If there is meant to be an implicit |
| 15 |
> argument that this is somehow insufficiently documented, by all means |
| 16 |
> make that point, ask people to document things more pervasively, do not |
| 17 |
> discard a working system because someone could not be bothered to read |
| 18 |
> the documentation. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Good points. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
IMO the proposal also has good points, and just needs to be updated to |
| 23 |
take scalability issues into account. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Maybe routine things like spam could go through forums-specific channel. |
| 26 |
I don't see a reason to get a bug filed for each of these. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Paweł |
Archives