(anonymous guest) (logged out)

Copyright (C) by the contributors. Some rights reserved, license BY-SA.

Sponsored by the Wiki Symposium and the Nuveon GmbH.

 
View Attach Info

Add new attachment

Only authorized users are allowed to upload new attachments.

This page (revision-12) was last changed on 24-Apr-2007 20:23 by ChristophSauer  

This page was created on 11-Apr-2007 11:25 by 84.150.23.191

Only authorized users are allowed to rename pages.

Only authorized users are allowed to delete pages.

Difference between version and

At line 36 added 20 lines
First I didn't want to react to the poll switch, but nevertheless I'd like to react to some of the comments above.
If I gave only a few options, it isn't because I was thoughtless as Christoph assumes, it was to pick only those which made sense and which seemed to be supported by some people. The choice wasn't closed, because I wrote explicitly that comments could be added, and I gave some time for reactions before starting the poll.
Having few options had two goals:
* clear results which let us unblock the situation and go forward, without introducing endless discussions and subjective interpretations;
* discarding possibilities which nobody wants.
To illustrate the second point, it's like choosing the background and forground color between black and white. I'd propose to choose between black on white or white on black; the current poll is like choosing independtly the foreground and background color, with the risk of some votes for black foreground, some for black background, and none (or weak ones) for white background or foreground. What do we do with the result (black on black)?
So the current poll will bring many opinions, most of them already expressed, which will have to be interpreted. It's started already. What a loss of time and energy! Since I've stated my opinion many times, including with the first poll, I won't bother to answer.
Was it done on purpose? I guess so. Saying first that my attempt was overly complicated (what, six possible answers for a single question? yes or no is enough!), then thoughtlessly restrictive (we need 32 different results, no less), is funny, isn't it?
What we're missing is a chairman whose authority and fairness everyone trust. Informal discussions of wiki show their limits.
PS: if I look slightly irritated, it's probably because I am.
-- [[YvesPiguet]], 2007-Apr-12
Version Date Modified Size Author Changes ... Change note
12 24-Apr-2007 20:23 8.411 kB ChristophSauer to previous changed my mind, escape character should be core.
11 16-Apr-2007 11:59 7.252 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last common wiki markup vs. collision free
10 16-Apr-2007 01:20 7.008 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last escaping links
9 16-Apr-2007 01:19 7.008 kB 85.221.141.46 to previous | to last escaping WikiLinks
8 15-Apr-2007 10:25 6.048 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last moved list nesting level to here, thanks axel.
7 12-Apr-2007 10:06 4.84 kB YvesPiguet to previous | to last Accepted
6 12-Apr-2007 09:59 4.785 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last apologies Yves
5 12-Apr-2007 09:24 3.938 kB YvesPiguet to previous | to last
4 11-Apr-2007 23:56 2.069 kB RadomirDopieralski to previous | to last comment conflicts with the vote?
3 11-Apr-2007 17:15 1.876 kB 129.187.228.135 to previous | to last
2 11-Apr-2007 15:26 1.707 kB ChristophSauer to previous | to last it is much cleaner now
1 11-Apr-2007 11:25 0.183 kB 84.150.23.191 to last
« This page (revision-12) was last changed on 24-Apr-2007 20:23 by ChristophSauer