[Noisebridge-discuss] non-excellent couch behavior

[Kelly]

Good point.  It's certainly preferable that the undoer initiate
discussion if possible.

I think we were talking about cases where the identity of the doer is
unknown to the undoer, but the identity of the undoer is known to the
doer.  Clearly, it's quite complicated.

Doing things always comes with the unfortunate possibility of having
to discuss them.

-K

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Rich Gibson <rich.gibson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am confused.  Why should people who want to undo have primacy?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Heh, I can't condone adding another RULE, but I do think that it's a
>> good description of excellence.  So we have:
>>
>> A) It is excellent to DO things
>> B) If your doing is undone, it is excellent to then seek the dreaded
>> trial of Talking To Other People.
>>
>> Can we handle that, nerds?
>>
>> -K
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Sai Emrys <noisebridge at saizai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From an offlist conversation, since it seems of  general relevance:
>>>
>>> I think it might be pointful to have a "1 revert rule" policy. Someone
>>> can do X, someone else can undo it, the first someone shouldn't redo
>>> it without consultation.
>>>
>>> This would help ensure that if people have a disagreement over what
>>> should be done, it's solved by discussion rather than attrition.
>>>
>>> - Sai
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>