Timeline for Proposed new language for FAQ
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 1, 2013 at 17:02 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - it's quite frustrating that you keep ignoring the facts here and ignoring (or selectively forgetting) what myself (and others) have said. If you continue that, the likelihood of any of us taking you seriously is zero. I'll try one more time to explain: XAMPP is a development tool. Yes, it can be used in a pro environment. As a dev tool. Any other usage of it goes against the XAMPP charter, is ill-advised, and non-professional and as such, is off-topic. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:50 | comment | added | martin's | @EEAA The problem with your vision of SF and the way the current moderation system works is that, in the absence of a more accurate FAQ it leads to oligarchy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy The problem, very specifically, is that the interests of SF visitors might not exactly align with the folkloric interpretation of the FAQ by high-rep users who, from the inside, shape it in their image. And so, SF reflect the views of the few rather than the many. Not sure how to solve this one other than with an accurate FAQ to start with. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 16:45 | comment | added | martin's | @EEAA Then the message you and other are transmitting though your actions is completely off-base. There is such a thing as using tools such as XAMPP on workstations and in a professional environment. Your disdain for them causes you to interpret the FAQ as you see fit and wield the power afforded to you by means of your high ranking in an rather unfair manner. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 15:43 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - additionally, it seems as if you think that all we care about are these large deployments. That is not the case. In fact, many of the high-rep users (myself included) have fairly small environments. Speaking for myself, my flock can be counted on two hands. Doing things right is just as important in small deployments as it is in large deployments, so the vast majority of questions can be applied to both. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 15:40 | comment | added | EEAA | @martin's - we absolutely do not limit questions to "big iron" deployments. We actually get fairly few questions about large and/or expensive deployments. Additionally, workstation questions are on topic, as long as the question pertains to the administration of those systems by someone who is doing this professionally. Take AD software deployments for example, or group policy. Those are both workstation-oriented topics that are on topic and have been asked and answered here many times. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:50 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | You're the one proposing a new FAQ, I'm quite satisfied with the current one. I'm simply pointing out some of the problems I see in your proposal. You can take them into account or not, as you see fit... One of the problems is that your very first sentence is wrong: SF is not limited to just Servers (what about networks!) and questions about the people who run servers are explicity off-topic according to the current FAQ and your proposal. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:47 | comment | added | martin's | Just changed "and the dedicated" to "for the dedicated". Good point. Clearer? | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:41 | comment | added | martin's | BTW, I just edited the original post to link to the page of the SE staff member who asked me to post my take on the new FAQ language. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:40 | comment | added | martin's | I am asking you what it is about. I have already proposed some language. I am waiting for yours. This is part of the problem. The current definition is very slippery and full of holes and then high-reputation folk apply creative thinking to turn it into whatever they want it to be and punish those daring to post outside THEIR defnition of the site. If my language is not correct, what should it be then? Is the current definition precisely correct? | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:32 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | If you don't like the current introductory sentence and propose to replace it with "SF is about..." then you should probably figure out what it's about. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:29 | comment | added | martin's | With regards to the use of "enterprise". It's just a proposal. What term would you propose the FAQ use to clearly describe that SF is not about systems sitting on your desk? The desire of the "clan" seems to be that SF is ONLY about production "heavy iron" systems, their software, related subsystems and virtually nothing else. No office workstations or the software they run unless the software is used to run or administer the "heavy iron" is probably a reasonable extension of that. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:25 | comment | added | martin's | "SF is not limited to Server HW and SW and it's not about the professionals who maintain them." OK, I am confused. What is it about then? | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:24 | comment | added | martin's | Oh please, I used "lists" as a generic term. A lot of people do. With regards to the rest of your comment. I felt the commentary was important. | |
| Jan 1, 2013 at 10:14 | history | answered | Ward - Trying CodidactMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |