User talk:Tuxayo/Automated edits code of conduct and DWG: Follow up to mailing list discussion and proposals
While I appreciate that someone cares to push forward the issue and has worked through the results, I dispute that some of the fidings are results of the mailing list discussion.
See details of this on a post to do on the mailing list.
The key differences are:
- There is no agreement (yet) what an automated edit is or not. Hence, most of the proposed activities simply do not make sense without a proper definition.
- Most reverts are (already) done by mappers outside the DWG. This is a feature and not a bug.
And as an addtional remark: Either we agree on rules or we abstain from producing more text. There is abundant advice and there are abundant ideas out there, but they are not necessarily consent. --Drolbr mdv (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are right, it was a legacy of how this page started.
- But now, it's misleading and the intro isn't enough to clarify that.
- So I changed the name, is that correct now? (for others, old name was Automated_edits_code_of_conduct_and_DWG:_Mailing_list_discussion_summary_and_proposals)
- See some responses to other point on the mailing list:
- > And as an addtional remark: Either we agree on rules or we abstain from
- > producing more text. There is abundant advice and there are abundant ideas out
- > there, but they are not necessarily consent.
- I'm not sure to understand that part. (I'm not a native speaker)
- Isn't debate needed to agree on rules and find consent?
- Tuxayo (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)