| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > 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.
Sorry, that was rhetoric. LUGNET is not infinite so there never has been an
"endless" one. But there have been lots of interminable ones, don't you agree?
> > > 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.
For a "made up" example
The decision would be "person A gets a timeout of 48 hours for reason X, and the
standard notice and group conditions apply" and the implementation was:
the implementation would be
post 1 - Person A gets a timeout indefinitely for reason Y
post 2 - No, we meant a 48 hour timeout, not indefinitely, we were in a hurry
post 3 - We forgot to mail person A
post 4 - Actually we meant reason X, not Y (although Y is, in this extreme case,
a justifiable reason despite our policy that normally we don't care about Y type
events, this particular Y is an "incite to riot")
post 5 - the mail wasn't the standard boilerplate so, oops...
etc.
The decision that 48 hours was the needed timeout for reason X wasn't wrong.
Just 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?
Not sure it's "just as likely", no.
> > 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.
And THAT'S the crux of why LUGNET is at least partly broken. The admins don't
trust (some of) the users and (some of) the users (not necessarily the same
ones) don't trust the admins.
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
