in reply to Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Why do you ask publicly, instead of messaging the monk who did the consideration ?

I don't think he will repeat considerations which are denied, so the self regulating system seems to work...

Or do you see a recurring problem?

Cheers Rolf

  • Comment on Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 09, 2010 at 16:59 UTC
    Why do you ask publicly, instead of messaging the monk who did the consideration ?

    Could he undo his action?

    My post was not to admonish the considerer--there have always been, and probably always will be, overzealous considerations. The point was to draw attention to the fact that they happen; to make people think a little more before they make them; to make people think a little more before they support them; and to wonder aloud if they shouldn't disappear automatically if the voting suggests they should.

    None of which would be accomplished by contacting the considerer in private.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion