Subject:
|
Re: Legends of Todd
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Apr 2005 00:24:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
| |
the Admins’ basic idea of how the P&P process
would work is essentially what you described here. We write it, work on
it. Share it with a few people and get their input, get the document into
a finished form and then share it with the public. This process was
interupted before it was finished.
|
I posted this already but this is not the impression that I got from the
announcement post or various other conversions with those involved. The
impression I got was that the committee was going to generate the P&P and
then it would be implemented without a general public discussion period. I
think this course of action would be a horrible mistake and only lead to
further division here on Lugnet.
|
Isn’t it possible for people to discuss something even if it is currently
being implemented?
|
Not if the policy being implemented has the effect of inhibiting discussion
or making that discussion irrelevant.
|
I’m sorry Marc, but the idea of Admins inhibiting discussion on Lugnet is
laughable. When have we ever done that or attempted to do that? Admins cannot
force edits or cancels - but can only do so when requested by a member.
And if the discussion is not inhibited - how can a policy make discussion
irrelevant? Wouldn’t the irrelevancy occur only if the Admins ignored the
discussion? In other words, it wouldn’t be implemented through a new policy.
Or maybe I’m missing something here.
Keep in mind that any decision made can be unmade or changed - so, in a way, you
might think of it that discussion of any policy, past or present, could be
relevant if it raises a point that the Admins hadn’t considered.
I guess I’m not really understanding the idea of irrelevancy here. Do you mean
it in that Admins won’t listen - or that they might dismiss the discussion? If
it dismissing the discussing... don’t Admins have the right to say that the
discussion is missing something, and therefore doesn’t warrant action? Or do
you want the members to be able to force the Admins to change policy decision?
-Lenny
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Legends of Todd
|
| (...) Not if the policy being implemented has the effect of inhibiting discussion or making that discussion irrelevant. Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (19 years ago, 21-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
