To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.suggestionsOpen lugnet.admin.suggestions in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Suggestions / 1287
1286  |  1288
Subject: 
Re: LUGNET members association
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions
Date: 
Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:59:32 GMT
Viewed: 
18 times
  
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've
considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review
process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular
reviewing action, and further repetition of the same information isn't going
to change our mind" (hows that for a wording) these discussions of reviewing
actions HAVE gone on interminably.

Is that really a problem? I agree at some point *you* may wish to stop arguing,
but why ask everyone else to? I think the problem with saying "The decision
stands, we don't see the point of people discussing further" (or in fact ANY way
of wording that sentiment-- it's the sentiment that's the issue, not the
wording) the feeling from people reading will interpret that as "We are now no
longer listening, please shut up". People don't like being told that they
shouldn't continue debating when they still feel like they have things to say.

OK let me put it another way, if it's worth creating a P&P doc, it's worth
assuring the users they will be listened to.

Totally agree with that. We do listen and we want people to know we listen.
But how often do we need to remind people of that? Every time an admin says
*anything*? Man that would make for wordy posts!

I think you need to say it every time it needs saying. With an informal and
non-comittal attitude like Todd's, you'd barely need to say it at all. People
would very quickly get the picture that you were listening. When you tell people
to stop talking about a certain subject, however (effectively saying "we won't
discuss it"), then it needs repeating quite a bit.

I think the difference is regarding decisions as final. Personally, I view
pretty much *nothing* as final. In some cases you may not be able to alter the
facts (like undoing or decreasing Chris's timeout), but the decision can still
be invalidated. Essentially something like "We're deeply sorry, we shouldn't
have done X" rather than "We admit we were wrong, but it doesn't change the fact
that X. Stop accusing us already."

DaveE



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: LUGNET members association
 
(...) Why not? It was my point, that without someone saying "We've listened, we've considered it carefully, we worked our process and we worked our review process, and we don't at this time see a need to change this particular reviewing action, and (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-05, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.suggestions)

45 Messages in This Thread:


















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR