| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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?
I think we are getting to the crux here, but I will go back over the rest of the
post later, and see if there's anything I think warrants further examination.
> 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)
Please point me to an endless debate.
> > 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.
Of course.
> 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?
OK, I'm not groking what you mean here. Please explain using an example (maybe
the specific one you mention above) the exact difference between the reviewing
decision and the implementation.
BTW, just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean you shouldn't allow for
it in the policy document. If there's been an implementation with issues, isn't
it just as likely a reviewing decision could have issues?
> > > "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.
LOL well I never thought I'd hear (or in this case see) you say that...
> > 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?
I think it does. If there was total trust, we wouldn't require a policy
document.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
