CZ Talk:Technical Team: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
I wouldn't call it a "workgroup." It wouldn't be responsible for content, so it's not anything like the existing workgroups. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:52, 27 December 2007 (CST) | I wouldn't call it a "workgroup." It wouldn't be responsible for content, so it's not anything like the existing workgroups. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:52, 27 December 2007 (CST) | ||
:Well, whatever it will be called, it at least has a face! In the current state (as Stephen said somewhere) you basically have to be "in the know". --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:57, 27 December 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 13:57, 27 December 2007
My idea for this was much more narrowly tailored. But what do you have in mind, RWK? Stephen Ewen 18:21, 24 December 2007 (CST)
- Um, I just copied the bio workgroup page for a template (because I don't think we have a generic workgroup template page!), and I'm modifying it greatly.
- Oh, gosh, looks great now. :-) Stephen Ewen 21:03, 24 December 2007 (CST)
- Do I detect sarcasm. =\. --Robert W King 21:12, 24 December 2007 (CST)
- Oh, gosh, looks great now. :-) Stephen Ewen 21:03, 24 December 2007 (CST)
- No, its much better. Stephen Ewen 15:41, 26 December 2007 (CST)
Well, it's either going to be "Technical Workgroup" or "Technical Team" (the name you gave it is redundant) and if you're interested in participating in such a team, by golly, you should communicate with the actual team: send mail to bugs@citizendium.org.
I wouldn't call it a "workgroup." It wouldn't be responsible for content, so it's not anything like the existing workgroups. --Larry Sanger 13:52, 27 December 2007 (CST)
- Well, whatever it will be called, it at least has a face! In the current state (as Stephen said somewhere) you basically have to be "in the know". --Robert W King 13:57, 27 December 2007 (CST)