Timeline for Reasonable business information technology management practices
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2015 at 0:00 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | Well, this went well. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 23:19 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/ServerFault/status/557678765875429377 | ||
| Jan 9, 2015 at 5:54 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | @Wesley I'm doing something similar, although my interest in voting on anything has largely disappeared lately. ps get a bike! | |
| Jan 8, 2015 at 17:45 | comment | added | Wesley | @HopelessN00b Hence I'm developing my own personal library of close reasons. :D I'll probably be the reason that StackExchange removes the custom close reason from ServerFault though. Everyone start hating me in advance. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 18:39 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | So that we're not derailing this question, I've started a new one for "how can we fix this thing": meta.serverfault.com/questions/7850/… | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 17:36 | comment | added | Rob Moir | I don't even have a clue what I'm supposed to close or leave open any more. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 15:51 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod |
@Sven Right, which, among other reasons, is why it would really be better if we just came out and said This question is being closed because you're doing wrong and/or clearly don't have a clue. Ask again if or when you decide to approach the problem with actual standards, like a professional would. But we can't, and SE seems entrenched in keeping things pink-and-fluffy, which is why it's confusing. There's just no pink-and-fluffy way to tell someone they're doing it incompetently, like a brain-damaged monkey would.
|
|
| Jan 7, 2015 at 15:44 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | I don't know. Personally I'm about five minutes away from removing this close reason, as I can't even understand why it was used sometimes. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 14:23 | comment | added | Sven Mod | @HopelessN00b: The problem I have with it is that I am not sure I really understand it myself - it sounds like written by a politician (sorry Shane...) and I really hesitate to use it because of this. As an example: If you don't know about the discussions we had, how should you understand what we mean with "unmaintained environment"? | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 14:14 | comment | added | TheCleaner | I'd try and take a crack at this one, but as shown here I was confused by it myself. Even Shane Madden doesn't like it, but it was the best he could come up with to replace the "not professional". I agree with @HopelessN00b in that it's a fluffy bunny version of "wth are you thinking?" | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 14:05 | comment | added | HopelessN00b Mod |
@Sven Might be worth waiting, but at the same time, I think that "reasonable business information technology management practices" is the core of the newly worded close reason, and was the gist of the old one too, so it seems like it's probably safe to assume that phrase won't be going away. I also disagree that the new close reason is crap... Sure, I'd prefer it say because you're "doing it wrong," dumbass, but since that's not gonna happen... well, I think the new wording strikes a good balance between plainly explaining what's wrong, while being SE pink-and-fluffy compatible.
|
|
| Jan 7, 2015 at 14:00 | comment | added | Sven Mod | Before we do this, we should think about altering this close reason. Plainly spoken, it's crap. | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 13:56 | comment | added | sysadmin1138 Mod | This question is intended to eventually be the link in the close-reason of this title. Please speak clearly, it's for posterity. Shall we begin? | |
| Jan 7, 2015 at 13:55 | history | asked | sysadmin1138Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |