Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development/Editors opposing this statement

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) There is widespread disquiet about this proposal, the way it has been put forward, and the motivations involved. Listing all the supporters in one place may give a misleading impression of consensus when the 23 other statements and their supporters (c. 200 endorsements but there are almost certainly duplications and I don't have time to check) are dispersed. Smoke, mirrors, Wikipolitics and Wikilawyering should be avoided, or minimised, if possible. NBeale (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, Slim, but I have to go with this at this point. Things are so fundamentally screwed at this point in time that something has to give or else the whole ship will collapse over time. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) Things are so fundamentally screwed at this point in time that something has to give or else the whole ship will collapse over time. rootology  ( C )( T ) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) Things are so fundamentally screwed at this point in time that something has to give or else the whole ship will collapse over time. rootology  ( C )( T ) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) Things are so fundamentally screwed at this point in time that something has to give or else the whole ship will collapse over time. And to be honest, sometimes a positive change begins with either a broken egg, in the form a good breakfast meal, or a lone man standing before a crushing tank. rootology  ( C )( T ) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) So we should just sit around and wait until such a time as things people are afraid will happen, actually happen? When this "policy advisory committee" issues a recommendation for a particular governance action, which gets endorsed by the ArbCom even though neither body has the right to make such recommendations, nor to enforce them?  Is the ArbCom so afraid of the community that not only do they present these undemocratic actions as Star Chamber faits accomplis, but are unwilling to listen to the community when we object?  The ArbCom presented this as having already occurred with no community input, nor even warning that it was going to happen, and now we should lie back and take it?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, y'know, you could assume some good faith that when they state their motives for why they created this, they're telling the truth. → ROUX   ₪  19:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The road to hell is often paved with the best of intentions. Badger Drink (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So is the road out of hell. -- Noroton (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said elsewhere, I have a great deal of respect for many of the admins who supported this council. I just find the action wrongheaded, and can't see that it could possibly be of any practical use at this point in time, where so many people oppose its very existence in the current format.  And I do not oppose the goals, I oppose the implementation.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To WTWAG - do you really think that a different group is going to come up with a radically different view of what areas are troubled areas on wikipedia? if not, can you see the benefit of watchnig and advising, until such time as it becomes more community-led/chosen? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (I replied here but Cas has proposed this exact question as a separate proposal, so I relocated it there :) Orderinchaos 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors opposing this statement

 * 1) I dislike "oppose" statements in RfCs, but this deserves explicit rejection:  ArbCom should be, and IMO must be, empowered to create whatever structures are necessary for it to get its real job done.  The goal is "do the job", not "do the job, while every member is holding hands, moving in unison, duplicating each other's efforts, and never, ever specializing or using this 18th-century innovation called division of labor to produce the same outcome more efficiently."  Their workload has increased.  If they can assign a couple of people to Common Task X and a couple of people to Common Task Y, and get the same results with half the labor, then they should definitely do so.  I add, for those interested in transparency, that ArbCom has, like any functional team, done exactly this for years:  the recent innovation is merely formalizing it and telling the rest of us who usually takes the lead in which steps.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) The point is to do what it takes to get the job done. If that means having an extra process, who cares? The reactionary nature of people to anything new or different than the status quo is a problem on this site. rootology  ( C )( T ) 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Per above. → ROUX   ₪  20:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)