CZ Talk:Editorial Council Resolution 0012: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (violating rules) |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::All the editors help CZ right now now matter how many little edits they make on pages. They are a strong group of experts and we need such people to legitimize CZ as an intellectual enterprise worthy of attracting such people; to hassle them is not the way to win their stamp of approval. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:30, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | ::All the editors help CZ right now now matter how many little edits they make on pages. They are a strong group of experts and we need such people to legitimize CZ as an intellectual enterprise worthy of attracting such people; to hassle them is not the way to win their stamp of approval. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:30, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
:::as for the procedures regarding amendments, Larry is wrong about the sequence of timing being explicit in the rules. However the rules do state "1 Before any resolution is made, it is preferable to discuss it among the larger community." -- that provision seems to have been violated in this case. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:44, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | :::as for the procedures regarding amendments, Larry is wrong about the sequence of timing being explicit in the rules. However the rules do state "1 Before any resolution is made, it is preferable to discuss it among the larger community." -- that provision seems to have been violated in this case. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 21:44, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
::::It is no "hassle" to be informed that you are being placed on a list of inactive editors. As "Inactive Editors" they ''will'' still be editors and have the rights of editors. But if they want the honor of editorship, they will have to participate. This is an active community of collaborators, not a traditionally edited project. Since people come and go at their own will, it is important that we maintain current records of who actually is participating, in much the same way that a coach might keep a current roster of who is playing for the team. | |||
::::"It is preferable" does not mean "You must," of course. Not every issue that comes before the Council needs to be discussed in depth with the community at large; please do not try to overstate your case, Richard. Anyway, despite the fact that you are again in a small minority, your voice of dissent is important, and so is the fact that we respect your right to dissent. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:42, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:42, 30 June 2008
Richard wrote in the "Amendments" section:
- I move the word "inactive" be changed to "advisory". Richard Jensen 16:57, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
You're free to do so, but this isn't the place where you do it. You make motions on the mailing list. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken, you cannot make motions until after the initial discussion period is concluded. (This is explained in our rules, if you're interested.)
I would oppose the amendment. These people are not advisors to us, for the most part, so that too would be dishonest. --Larry Sanger 21:21, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
- All the editors help CZ right now now matter how many little edits they make on pages. They are a strong group of experts and we need such people to legitimize CZ as an intellectual enterprise worthy of attracting such people; to hassle them is not the way to win their stamp of approval. Richard Jensen 21:30, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
- as for the procedures regarding amendments, Larry is wrong about the sequence of timing being explicit in the rules. However the rules do state "1 Before any resolution is made, it is preferable to discuss it among the larger community." -- that provision seems to have been violated in this case. Richard Jensen 21:44, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
- All the editors help CZ right now now matter how many little edits they make on pages. They are a strong group of experts and we need such people to legitimize CZ as an intellectual enterprise worthy of attracting such people; to hassle them is not the way to win their stamp of approval. Richard Jensen 21:30, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
- It is no "hassle" to be informed that you are being placed on a list of inactive editors. As "Inactive Editors" they will still be editors and have the rights of editors. But if they want the honor of editorship, they will have to participate. This is an active community of collaborators, not a traditionally edited project. Since people come and go at their own will, it is important that we maintain current records of who actually is participating, in much the same way that a coach might keep a current roster of who is playing for the team.
- "It is preferable" does not mean "You must," of course. Not every issue that comes before the Council needs to be discussed in depth with the community at large; please do not try to overstate your case, Richard. Anyway, despite the fact that you are again in a small minority, your voice of dissent is important, and so is the fact that we respect your right to dissent. --Larry Sanger 22:42, 30 June 2008 (CDT)