Subject:
|
Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:49:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
991 times
|
| |
|
|
Rearranging with no intent to harm:
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I sort of disagree that there is no difference between guidance and
> discussion of guidance.
OK. I think I agree with you because the issue of keeping the NG 'clean' is
the motivation - as long as a dissenting opinion is encouraged to follow the
guidance off-group eventually.
> Original guidance, since it's for the edification of
> other readers of the theme group, [snip] is not off topic.
>
> It *is* perfectly legitimate and reasonable to question or build consensus
> around the nature of guidance but I see that as not on topic for the theme
> group. It ought to be taken elsewhere in my view.
> Further I think once a consensus on what ought or ought not to be done
> (about a particular guidance or whether it was good or bad guidance) has
> been reached it is perfectly OK (good, even) for someone to followup, with a
> summary of the consensus reached, back to the theme group.
Great. I think that's the process that should take place.
> Currently that elsewhere (the place to have meta discussion about guidance),
> in my view, is admin.general...It's...a place to talk about general
> admin-ish issues. • [snip]
> I'd wish the elsewhere was somewhere else to reduce traffic here and because
> of the connotation that this group carries of "calling in the muscle".
Good point. Part of this fracas was based on the understanding that you were
appealing to authority for something seen to be minor. And you seem to have
meant to be just moving the venue to a more appropriate place.
Suz, are you out there? Do you have an opinion? Should we have a
lugnet.admin.self-governance to spare .general from this kind of stuff, or is
this the right place?
> So, did I send this to admin.general too fast? Not in my view.
Now I'm thinking that you waited too long. If you had set FUT .admin.general
on your second note, the third would probably never have been needed which
would have avoided you being a bit terse.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
| Just closing one particular loop: (...) Quoting from the post sending it here: "Unless you think you get a special pass on this for some reason. Take it up with the admins since my guidance has failed." This was VERY poorly worded on my part. It (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Meta discussion about guidance
|
| (...) Rather than my usual intersperse, I'll just provide my current thoughts on the subject. I sort of disagree that there is no difference between guidance and discussion of guidance. Basically I think there's a point at where things have veered (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
