Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/April Arcus: Difference between revisions
More actions
m Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus" |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court". | I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court". | ||
I appreciate that | I appreciate that April took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | :I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:April Arcus|April Arcus]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:18, 11 April 2020
RFC thoughts
I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court".
I appreciate that April took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --Steelviper 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
- I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --April Arcus 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
- I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --Steelviper 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
- This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --gougef 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
- I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --Steelviper 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
I think Steelviper is right: wikipedia does this but we have so few regular editors that it's just cumbersome in here, and our current method of just debating things on talk pages is enough to handle our needs. --The Merovingian (C - E) 12:28, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
Arbitrary Time Frames
"Steelviper's self-admitted arbitrary time frame might have set a hasty deadline that was too fast for most of us."
- I didn't set the time frame, but I did update the Sitenotice at Shane's request (with the deadline driving off of the project page text). I do agree with the rest of the summary, though.--Steelviper 13:02, 8 June 2006 (CDT)