CZ Talk:Editorial Council Resolution 0012: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (we need all the editors to legitimize CZ) |
imported>Richard Jensen (violating rules) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I would oppose the amendment. These people are not advisors to us, for the most part, so that too would be dishonest. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:21, 30 June 2008 (CDT) | I would oppose the amendment. These people are not advisors to us, for the most part, so that too would be dishonest. --[[User:Larry Sanger|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. [[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) | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 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)