Talk:Process/Decision-making
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Signing off | 3 | 08:38, 3 February 2010 |
| Translations | 1 | 18:52, 25 January 2010 |
| Testing | 4 | 22:09, 13 January 2010 |
I hear and see your comment about people signing the document to accept it; it seems to me that a dissenters situation will pop up almost immediately. It will probably include people who agree to THIS part but not THAT part... witness just about any of the RfC's on the English Wikipedia. :-)
That's okay. Dissension is good.
If this process is successful, then we should have a lot of people buying into it. Signing a statement that you participated in creating is an empowering act, which is what we want to encourage.
To tell you the truth, I think that if we left it up to any old RFC, you would see very few changes. Not because people are against change, but because people want different kinds of change and don't have the time/will/skills to find common ground. That's a big part of what we discussed and designed at this recommendation for community health.
I really like the recommendation, and I love how thoroughly it's researched. I think that the proposal here is similar in spirit.
Translations are very important if you go this way.
Still haven't gotten the hang of this... –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does the edit window open even if I don't click the "add a reply" link? And why is the timestamp so light?
