| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > Granted, there are lessons that can be taken, but endless debate (about specific
> > reviewing actions) has proven (in many many other places, not just here) not to
> > be useful. So when, for example, some discussion of a reviewing action occurs,
> > at some point you are going to see an admin remind the community that the
> > decision was taken and that decision can't be undone and the debate isn't going
> > to change the fact that it was decided that way in the past because you can't
> > change the past.
> >
> > Do you agree that's valid?
>
> I'm not sure exactly which part you're referring to so I'll just look at the
> last paragraph.
I was referring to the whole thing. What specifically do you disagree with?
This is an important point that bears repeating:
" endless debate (about specific reviewing actions) has proven (in many many
other places, not just here) not to be useful "
(YCLIU)
> I agree debate is not going to change the initial decision, but it CAN point out
> fallacies in the decision process that could lead ANOTHER decision that (at
> least partially) undoes the initial decision, and hopefully reduces the chance
> of a similar incorrect decisions in the future.
Assuming it was an incorrect decision, that is.
I'm not aware of any reviewing decisions (decisions, not implementations of
them, we have already acknowledged some issues with one specific one) that have
been incorrect, since I started being involved in making them. Are you?
> > "We are not going to debate" might not be the best phrasing but that's the
> > important idea to convey. How would you phrase it differently?
> How about "Any further debate will not change the original decision, but may, if
> a convincing argument is put, cause the Administration to consider actions which
> may (fully or partially) undo a previous decision"?
That wording works for me. It's pretty wordy though.
> That does not specify whether or not Admins will take part in any debate, but
> does make it plain that arguments arising from admin decisions will always be
> considered. The current wording does not give any such assurance.
Does that assurance need to be given every time? Doesn't that show a lack of
trust, to require that assurance?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
45 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
|
|
|
|
