CZ Talk:Biology Workgroup/Biology Week/Pending decisions: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Daniel Mietchen |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
These are all excellent goals. But I disagree that we ''must'' have accomplished them before we can have a Biology Week. We have quite simply spent too long "getting ready" in this way, and we could probably do so for a couple more years. It's time to expand our ranks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:14, 10 June 2008 (CDT) | These are all excellent goals. But I disagree that we ''must'' have accomplished them before we can have a Biology Week. We have quite simply spent too long "getting ready" in this way, and we could probably do so for a couple more years. It's time to expand our ranks. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 22:14, 10 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
:The reason I set the page up is that we need a basis upon which to structure the announcements (and the PLoS article in particular, as it will have a publication lag of about 8 weeks and should still be reflecting the cornerstones of CZ policy when published). So what we need is not necessarily final decisions but suitable phrasing for external use. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 04:09, 11 June 2008 (CDT) | :The reason I set the page up is that we need a basis upon which to structure the announcements (and the PLoS article in particular, as it will have a publication lag of about 8 weeks and should still be reflecting the cornerstones of CZ policy when published). So what we need is not necessarily final decisions but suitable phrasing for external use. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 04:09, 11 June 2008 (CDT) | ||
::I'm not sure what you mean by "basis upon which to structure the announcements." If you simply mean text that we can adapt, that's under development (see the "letters" [[CZ:Workgroup_Weeks#Sign_up_sheet_for_general_initiative_tasks|listed here]]), and it looks like you've already made a start on the PLoS article. None of that requires that the pending decisions you've listed be made, does it? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:47, 11 June 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:47, 11 June 2008
need for extra constables during workgroup weeks 24/7
I'm sure if we advertise big enough, we will get people signing up for workgroup week to try and spoil it with vandalism, etc.
We will need a massive constable effort during the first rounds of workgroup week.
We may want to recruit more constables so we can have them on 24-7. Tom Kelly 17:51, 9 June 2008 (CDT)
Reaction to this
These are all excellent goals. But I disagree that we must have accomplished them before we can have a Biology Week. We have quite simply spent too long "getting ready" in this way, and we could probably do so for a couple more years. It's time to expand our ranks. --Larry Sanger 22:14, 10 June 2008 (CDT)
- The reason I set the page up is that we need a basis upon which to structure the announcements (and the PLoS article in particular, as it will have a publication lag of about 8 weeks and should still be reflecting the cornerstones of CZ policy when published). So what we need is not necessarily final decisions but suitable phrasing for external use. -- Daniel Mietchen 04:09, 11 June 2008 (CDT)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "basis upon which to structure the announcements." If you simply mean text that we can adapt, that's under development (see the "letters" listed here), and it looks like you've already made a start on the PLoS article. None of that requires that the pending decisions you've listed be made, does it? --Larry Sanger 09:47, 11 June 2008 (CDT)