I would have thought my reasoning to be self-evident, but perhaps that's a blind spot on my part. When deciding how to categorize (or recategorize) a post, I find that it helps to have a simple rule.
Is the post substantially about either the mechanisms or the overt policies of Perlmonks?is the simplest, least ambiguous rule I could come up with. Perhaps it's too simple. But the more complex the rule set, the greater the likelihood of meta-argument. We don't have a category for meta-argument. :)
In reply to Re: Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
by dws
in thread Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical?
by tye
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |