Being able to call a "Walter Weigh In" (page 2)

April 21, 2005
Re: Being able to call a "Walter Weigh In"
Posted by TechnoZeus
in reply to Regan Heath
Permalink
TechnoZeus
Posted in reply to Regan Heath
Permalink
This also would convert readily to a subject tag as "[proposal]" the advantages of which include that it can be searched without hitting occurances of the word being used other than as a tag, and that where appropraite, multiple tags can be used as subject keywords.

TZ

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opspj3hhd023k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:04:54 +1200, Brad Beveridge <brad@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty
> >> nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke
> >> this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
> >>  Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick
> >> in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be
> >> abused.
> >>  Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We
> >> need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating
> >> discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a
> >> body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing
> >> it).
> > OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
> > I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able
> > to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number
> > (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of
> > my head, should be
> > Matthew
> > Georg Wrede
> > Ben Hinkle
> > Regan Heath
> > Anders
> > Derek
> >
> > If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG the WWI won't be called.
>
> Woohoo! I made the list!
>
> Seriously though, I can think of a number of other people (not on this list) who appear to me to be quite capable of doing a good summary of issues in their own area of experience.
>
> I am reminded of Norbert's proposal which he posted to the NG, and to Walter directly? That seemed to work. However, as has been mentioned we don't want everyone doing that(*). The method that was used then, tho informally, was something like...
>
> An N stage process.
>
> Stage 0: the thread/discussion here on the NG.
>
> Stage 1: If/when it reaches the Walter input stage we have a quick vote and a person (or even 2 working together via email) is/are chosen to attempt to write an impartial objective proposal. They post the proposal back to the group with a subject of "REVIEW-1: <subject>" and a link to the original thread.
>
> Anyone may then comment on the proposal itself. Including Walter. Clarifying any miss-representation as they see it, the original author makes changes and re-posts, "REVIEW-2: <subject>".
>
> Repeat, until no further comments/complaints are made.
>
> Last stage, the proposal is posted as "PROPOSAL: <subject>".
>
> Regan
>
> (*) Clarification, I am not implying anyone is less capable, but rather newcomers have less knowledge of D's particular methods, goals, quirks, hot-topics, etc and we want to avoid the same thing being posted all over again.
Forums
