Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion

message: * Blueboar - (Nomination declined... thanks for the expression of support - but I expect my work situation to heat up over the next few weeks... I shall follow the debates and discussions with interest.  Good luck Blueboar 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declined 

message: * (Septentrionalis) (neutral)
* (mostly neutral, has some good ideas)
* (oppose, good insight into the "truth" issue) will decide later whether to accept
::The "truth" issue will not be part of the working committee, I would say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
:::I would hope it would. It was a major issue (and I think it's more easily resolved than most people seem to believe). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The group is formed to discuss a compromise related to ATT, V, NOR and RS. Not to change, or propose changes to the principles upon which our policies stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it important to recognize the concern of many that, though "the intention" was not to change existing policy, there may in fact be a change of policy?  I'm of the belief that you can't change the wording of a policy without changing policy.  I don't think it serves the process for our committee to forge ahead while stubbornly clinging to the idea that the proposed policy was not a change, and that anyone who disagrees simply fails to understand.  Such an approach is unlikely to result in an acceptable compromise. zadignose 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Truth" is not an issue here. Verfiability is the criteria. FeloniousMonk 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I nominate  and  for the opponent side.  I'll decide at a later time, after more is known about what the working group is going to do and when and how, whether to accept my nomination.  --Coppertwig 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other suggestions

message: Your approach to resolution appears to lack enough impartial participants in my honest opinion. I'd say the very fact that your working party "should include the best voices among the yes and no vote" is already an issueproblematic. And who is to mediate? Might I suggest at the 11th hour that you just scrap this approach and use members of the arbitration committee, or consider adding them to the working committee? Rfwoolf 09:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominate  and  for the opponent side.  I'll decide at a later time, after more is known about what the working group is going to do and when and how, whether to accept my nomination.  --Coppertwig 21:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of impartial members - include Arbitration Committee?

message: Is anyone not happy with these eight? I think this is an very good and diverse selection. Is any view not represented? Could it be that we manage this without a POLL?  --Merzul 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more polls. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: no more polls, please. Let us keep these eight as the proposed team for a couple of days, and address any objections that may be raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought WAS was neutral. I'll check again. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, he was number 62 in neutral, but now that I look more closely, he was also number 64 there, so they were clearly only comments. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. I have moved him back to the first section. Hopefully there will not be objections ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: His transclusion idea was quite interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider this an objection then, since someone just removed the actually neutral nomination I added.  Certain people don't seem able to stop trying to stack votes and control the debate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 22:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish, the group here seems to be moving towards a nice compromise, please don't disrupt it as you did the previous processes. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You use that word a lot but don't seem to actually understand its meaning here very clearly.  I think a good example of disruptive editing would be moving people from the support segment to the neutral segment, asking if people object, removing their nomination from play, and then attacking them for objecting.  <ahem> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SMcCandlish, as I said before, reasonable editors are working towards a reasonable compromise here. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I do know that you weren't able to interact on this in a constructive or consensus building way before, and you're doing the same kinds of things that made your actions so disruptive in the past, so it would be best if you devoted your time and energy elsewhere. I'm strongly recommending that you do so, and that others ignore you, if they want to have any possibility of achieving success in their endeavors. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing is, only three people say this to me: you, SV and Jossi (and with at least two of you, I've noticed a general pattern of labelling people one does not agree with, and who won't just shut up in awe of your grandiose adminship, as "disruptive", "trouble-making" and other dismissive epithets.)  I've been thanked by others for my vigilance here.  Repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing like a broken record doesn't make it true.  The only other people who've ever accused me of WP:DE my entire time on Wikipedia were (imagine that) also heavily involved in pushing their particular side of a policy/guideline debate without regard for balance, process or consensus.  Hmm...  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to take my own advice here. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenient (and frankly getting-to-be-typical) dodge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns and have heard them all along, SMc, but that kind of comment doesn't advance the issue, and may cause others to just ignore you.  If we have to trudge through this whole darn thing anew, let's remember the time it takes to read every new comment, and consider whether anything we add advances resolution of the dilemma.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We've agreed on nine, and we have nine at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "we"?  I see that Jossi thinks nine is a good idea, and I think one other person did, while others want 8, others want 6, and most of all people want a balanced number from all three "blocs". Moving people from the Support stack to the Neutral stack isn't helping achieve any balance. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 22:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still concerned about the lack of uninvolved editors.  Did we learn nothing from recent situations? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo asked for a bipartisan working group, so that's what we're setting up. People aren't going to be arguing for one side or another, Jeff, but developing a compromise position, so we're moving forward rather than trying to win an argument. Jimbo may have some ideas for uninvolved people, and hopefully Jimbo will be part of it too. These names are just a suggestion. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Jeff, what do you mean by "uninvolved" exactly? People who didn't comment at all? Because not everyone on the list was deeply involved by any means. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that people who were not involved in the formation or unformation of the merge be the people to take a look at the arguments and come up with a conclusion.  With all due respect, you shouldn't be a person on this ad hoc because you were not only instrumental in its creation, but the lead person in the implementation.  Likewise, people who came up with various conclusions, like Askari Mark, probably shouldn't be involved with this stage either, because they're already sitting on an opinion.  Are we really saying we can't find a half dozen trusted members of the community who didn't give input in the discussion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo decided that a bipartisan party would be a good idea, and specifically asked that we look for the best people among the No votes. I'm not sure I see the point of picking people not involved at all, because they might not be familiar with the issues. But if Jimbo wants ininvolved people too, he'll be able to pick in addition to the names we suggest. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's his request, then that's his request - I think it's shortsighted, but it was his poll to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every experienced editor is concerned with verfiability. It is clear that editors not involved with this discussion have different ideas of what this is or can be. I would suggest Mackensen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackensen is a good idea. Jeff, thanks for suggesting JzG. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The honorable User:SMcCandlish is correct in the observation of the flow of coordinated actions to stack votes and control the debate.  And certainly any "uninvolved editors" who seem to be immune to stacking and control are ignored by those who select the working party.  All you have to do to see the pattern clearly is simply to make a chart of who did what say 1) four months before now, 2) immediately pre-poll, 3) during the poll, and 4) now.  Throughout the history of civilization, there have been several successful techniques for limiting the destructive force of stacking the votes and controlling the debate.  One historically successful technique to minimize the destructive decision-making from stacking the votes and controlling the debate is to select the eleven electors at random from the total pool of thousands of willing and experienced editors, and then those eleven electors then vote to choose the working committee.  --Rednblu 23:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the other shoe drops. I strongly recommend that editors here also ignore any of the comments made by this editor as well. Wikipedia is not a social experiment, as much as certain editors would like to think it is, or use it for that purpose. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quickly getting tired of being told whose opinions and comments to ignore. It makes me want to listen more attentively to anyone you have an interest in silencing. zadignose 21:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Rednblu, I have listened to you and tried to understand your position, I would be willing to do so here as well, but only if you stop trying to be clever, and instead tell us what should be done... Do you have issues with people's behaviour, then perhaps that should be taken up with them, or on some other forum, let's try to suppress the ego issues and think about the future of Wikipedia (on this page at least). Thanks. --Merzul 23:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My position is simply that I would like to see the Wikipedia decision-making process exhibit the behavior of a healthy decision-making process.  In contrast, the decision-making process that led to WP:ATT was severely flawed by not making an actual measure of consensus--which severe flaw was evidenced by the actual comments in the Poll.  What is missing at the current time is some means of selecting from the thousands of willing and experienced editors their input to the selection of this working party.  I am sure we could among us think of an effective means to get sufficient input from the wide Wikipedia community in selecting this working party.  That is my position.  --Rednblu 00:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Rednblu, I don't think you have anything to worry about, since the working committee wouldn't actually have any authority whatsoever to impose a binding solution.  The theory is that if people on opposite ends of the spectrum, and a few people in the middle or off of the line, actually manage to agree on something, chances are that others will too.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would be good if those who accept would just add "I accept" or something like that after their name. --Merzul 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean is that some users that have been proposed, do not know that... Would be courteous to leave a note  in their talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I already did that for the person I nominated, but many nominees have already commented here, so they are probably watching this page, but we should notify people like Askari Mark, who hasn't commented here yet. I think whoever nominated should notify. --Merzul 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll let WAS know. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <end conf> Marskell is as eloquent as any one of us, and will do a great job, I am sure. As for polarizing comments that have been made above, I would strongly advise 'not to reply to them. Time to move on from "partisanship". The team will work towards a ccompromise and I trust that they will do their best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've suggested Slrubenstein. I can't remember whether he voted for or neutral (I think for), but he knows a lot about policy, is in two minds about the merger, and has put forward some very good suggestions. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOR taken too far.  Try #76 in support 18:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabulous Eight? 

message: Are we going for nine or 11? I had understood nine. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both could work, SlimVirgin. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly no more than a baker's dozen, but as long as it's a constructive, mature and copacetic group, a precise quantity for a subjective judgment is perhaps unwise. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A genuine balance matters more than the number. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 09:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree with that.  Facilitation of face to face groups gets quite challenging beyond nine or ten members, for various reasons.  Facilitating in the online environment is even more difficult so making any progress with more than that is well night impossible in the short term.  This is exacerbated when there is no clear facilitator anyway.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTDT.  I've never argued for more than 9 members, just for genuine (i.e., no recategorizing for ideological convenience) balance (which I maintain is more important; if you have "committee" or whatever of 35, it very rapidly resolves to an active committee of 2-12 anyway, simply by sheer force of reticence).  As for faciliator lack, if you mean to imply that the person who really generated all of this heat should take more of an interest in cooling it down, I couldn't agree more.  I among many feel a bit toyed with, and I'm sure that I have sympathizers with that view on all sides of the tesseractal fence. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 14:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And the bigger the group gets, the harder it is to determine what their consensus is. Smaller groups can come to a consensus (not a vote) more easily, but larger groups can represent more views. A good compromise between those needs to be struck. mike4ty4 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I suggest that a lead should be nominated to actively facilitate the process, preferably from the uninvolved side of this triad.  Mackensen springs to mind as most appropriate.ALR 09:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is crucial that each and every one of the nominations to this working party have the appearance of deriving from the actions of the thousands of Wikipedia editors willing and eager to have input to who is to serve on this working party.  The current slate for this working party is praiseworthy.  But this selection process is not acceptable.  Where has the wide Wikipedia community had input to who is nominated?  How about an announcement on the WatchList page inviting input from the thousands of Wikipedia editors wanting to have input to this nominating process?  --Rednblu 10:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I go away for a week, and look what happens - action! I'll just twist Jimbo's arm, while expressing my views, when he's in town in two weeks. Hehe. Seriously, this sounds like a good move. It's not unlike a tiny bit like what I proposed a week or two ago, on the assumption that it would still ultimately be Jimbo's decision how to close the whole thing. Is that how it is supposed to work? (Goes and reads more.) Metamagician3000 11:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Shall I start a mockup of my compromise suggestion at 
Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/proposed compromise? I could create a first draft, then Armed Blowfish, CP\M}, SandyGeorgia, Askari Mark, Thebainer, SlimVirgin, Crum375, Marskell and I could edit it while being helped by comments by anyone on this page. This would be a suite of pages that can include other interim mockups until we seven to nine people agree we have something worth going live with. I hope we can come up with something that so clearly represents everyone's wishes that we can simply make it live and let normal wiki style editing and discussing modify it from there. WAS 4.250 13:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, so long as we bear in mind that we've not heard from Jimbo yet, but there's no harm in laying out some ideas. I was very interested in how your transclusion idea would work. It sounded like a technical solution that might keep everyone happy. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, it doesn't sound good to me :-)  There have been procedural and methodological problems all along the way here, some possibly caused by folks being in too much of a hurry.  Every time people start talking, someone puts up a list or a summary or a poll or a categorization of issues, and people  stop talking and start dividing and fighting.  I don't think that's the best way to start; there's so much division that anything anyone puts up will just generate more heat.  The entire process has suffered from too many precipitous moves.  We don't have to put up polls within hours of their proposal, we don't have to decide on working groups less than 24 hours after they're proposed, and we don't have to propose a compromise before there's even been a dialogue among the (as yet undecided) group members.  There isn't even consensus on the working group; it's too soon to put up proposals.  Folks should slow down here and recognize some of the past methods that got this proposal into trouble.  The community wants to feel that it is heard on this important issue, and doesn't want to feel that something is ramrodded through or shoved down their throats.  It's too soon to propose a compromise; let people get comfortable with who the group is, how it's supposed to work, and what Jimbo's involvement or position in the matter will be.  My mantra is "It's a new ballgame"; it's not the eighth inning.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, as an example of this problem, less than 24 hours ago, discussion about a working group was initiated.  I don't know who did it, but lickity-split, wham, we suddenly had a "list" of pro/con/neutral, dividing and categorizing the issue, when discussion about the proposed members had barely started.  I am most definitely a list person, and I have to resist the temptation to organize and listify anything I encounter, but in a divisive environment, all of these lists and categorizations don't help.  We need to slow down and give people a chance to be heard before we list, segment, categorize, set in stone, etc.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two poblems here: first, a too pompous start, second "how can we do it without hearing from  Jimbo?" What's the fuss? Why don't they start workig as a group of concerned wikizens; it is only natural that some people like to work alone, while others work in a team? Just do it, without pretending or waiting for having some higher endorsement? `'mikka 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but WAS, I would still like to hear more about your idea, so feel free to tell me more, or e-mail me if you prefer. I was trying to visualize it as something like RfA, with a main page and transcluded subpages, but I was getting stuck on the problem of having separate edit histories, and all the talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be something like the ArbComm's "Proposed findings of fact" to begin, except non-binding. Marskell 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shall I start?

message: See Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. WAS 4.250 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: transclusion mockup in progress

message: While my idea to set up a WG-2 was in the response of arm-twisting approach of certain colleagues, even in a broader sense I don't see what's wrong with having a back-plan. This is  a standard procedure to save time when rsources are not bottleneck. While it is known that 3 women cannot together give burth to one chils in 3 month, each of them ic capable to produce a healthy one in 9 months, so that people have a choice who of the three will be President of the US. `'mikka 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel like discussing a possible solution to this problem in a small group of people, go for it.  : )  I wasn't trying to discourage you.  Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the first workgroup (being a small group of people already) is going to suggest a possible solution without seeking for higher endorsement and vigorously defending their "truth" and "hard work", fine with me either. But this was not what happened with WP:ATT. And I would like to discourage you from the disparaging point of view that I "feel like discussing a possible solution in a small group"  and you will be "working to develop a compromise", which may be read that my hoal is to have a small talk or to make some fuss, and your noble goal is to save wikipedia.  `'mikka 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some editors whose noble goal is to validate their past efforts. If they are on the first workgroup, they may be expected to do this; as they persistently do without one. As for AB, I doubt he meant any such thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are assuming that people are acting with a pre-disposed mindset, but please consider that your perception may be at fault. In reading the comments in this page, I see some honest attempts to accept the fact that there are many opinions on the matter and that a small group of people in a "bi-partisan" context, can come up with a proposal that will be useful. Rather than doubting the good faith of these participants, I would support them in their efforts. As for a second working group, by all means go ahead with it if that is what you think would be helpful. Alternatively, you could support them in the efforts, and maintain communication with that group via one of the editors that you respect. That is what I intend to do: let them work unencumbered by the feeling that their work may be in vain, and submit my ideas/comments to one of them during that time.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rejoice if there were to be less evidence of such a mindset; and would then conclude that I had been mistaken. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If a person writes something without thinking how it will be read by his opponent, I seriously doubt they are in a position to write any policies at all. `'mikka 17:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cool down. This is a talk page; I certainly do not claim to be expressing myself with the iron precision of policy. If you do, it is novel to me; and you may regret being taken up on it. ;-> If we were to wait to comment until we thought out all possible interpretations of our words, we would get nothing done - and we would still be read in ways we didn't expect. This is one of the things WP:AGF is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So far as I can tell, no one intends to come up with a binding decision here, mikka.  If no one intends to do that, I don't see how any of us intends to do more than discuss a possible solution in a small group of people.  I apologise if you read my comment otherwise, mikka.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Actually the advantage of your plan is that it doesn't require a Committee of Public Safety. The part of it I value is the discussion at WP:V and :NOR to see whether some language like :ATT can be consensus, and that just needs people to do it. Having a working group page to discuss this will be helpful, but secondary. I will be busy the next few days, but I should be able to get something started Monday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say now that if any working group 2 is started then I will immediately move for the creation of a working group 3; it will be my appointees and I'll determine the result. I think it will advance splendidly. Oh and while telling mikka to AGF, you should do the same PMa. Marskell 18:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid idea. I absolutely see no reason that there must be "elite 3+3+3" with a bunch of second-hand "#Other suggestions" surrounded by idle spectators watching the blinkenlights. If all active participants of this talk page distrbute themselves in several WGs, all this bickering will end and the work starts. `'mikka 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I say now that if any working group 2 is started then I will immediately begin to invite a simple random sample of experienced editors to join the nomination process by suggesting candidates to fill out the working group 2 to its full complement of eleven productive editors that have been legitimately selected to represent the actual views of the wide Wikipedia community.  --Rednblu 18:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am both simple and random. Please ensure I am randomly selected for WG3. <cough> (If it becomes too complex, we can rename it WGi. Very nice!) –Outriggr § 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  You are badly mistaken colleague about WG-2. As I wrote, it will not be "cream of cream" nor pretend to represent "actual wiews of wikipedia community". It will represent views of the WG-2, which will be judged by community. `'mikka 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would not WG-2 strive to represent "actual views of the Wikipedia community" in what it did?  --Rednblu 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. First of all, it will represent the views of a sample of Wikipedia community made into WG-2. And it is an important point: as you may have noticed I hate people who pretend to speak "for all" and I will never work into a commission with such item in its statute. Second, the goal in not to represent "the views of community", but to recast already formulated policies into a more digestible form. Third, while the "Action plan" is still a redlinked page, I intend to mention there that off-WG-2 opinions will be dutifully recorded and addressed. the proposed solution will be "owned" by the WG-2 until the moment of its final report. After that the community will take over the control of the result to do anything it wants, including letting it down the drain. `'mikka 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So if you started with a good "sample," you would expect already to represent a good "sample."  Would that be fair?  --Rednblu 00:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with having a back-up plan?

message: I have a few suggestions about the steps going forward.  First, it seems to me a good idea to have a working-group (or two!) to work on a compromise. In my view, however, this group may be starting its work a little too soon.
Anyway, I want to point out that a working-group has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that the number of voices is small enough to actually have a negotiation.  The disadvantage, however, is that we lose what is the great thing about wikis--that there are lots and lots and lots of ideas, and lots and lots of criticism of ideas. With the workgroup (or two!), you'll have 9 (or 18!) people giving their thoughts instead of hundreds.  
I have a suggestion that can bring us the advantages of both.  Hold-off on the working-group deliberation for a week or so.  During that week, have a WP:RFC-style proposal section.  One user can propose deleting ATT; another renaming WP:V to ATT; someone else transclusion, etc., etc.  People can either subscribe to the proposal or proposals they support (RFC-style) or write up a proposal of their own.  By the end of the week, we'll have a good sense of what specific approaches have the most support, and perhaps we'll have an idea or two more to get us out of the box we're in.  Then we turn the question over to a working group (or two!) for a period of intense discussion/negotation.  (Perhaps the proposers of the most thoughtful proposals might usefully be added to the working group.) 
Now, this might add another week to the process, but this is a wiki and there is no deadline, and I think we're more likely to find a solution that most users are comfortable with.  semper fictilis 02:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a good idea, but I’m afraid that approach tends to work best when there’s a single issue (or very few) to resolve and this mess is riddled with them.  My understanding of the purpose for this working group is that it take the feedback from the poll (an RfC of sorts), and see whether it can’t come up with some small subset of options that can then be reviewed, chewed and possibly implemented by the broader membership in some like fashion.  Part of what is being discussed above is how to allow the larger community to provide contemporaneous constructive inputs, because we know more heads are better than one (or 8 or 9 or whatever). Askari Mark (Talk) 03:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions about the way forward 

message: Merzul has experimented with the transclusion compromise mockup at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion/transclusion. Everyone feel free to check it out, experiment, improve, ... WAS 4.250 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transclusion compromise

message: Hi.
Would this be any good?
1. Turn WP:ATT into a brief summary of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS and describe the basic unifying concept of attribution.
2. For details on these facets of the concept, it woudl direct to each of the three.
3. They may be renamed to Wikipedia:Attribution/Verifiability, Wikipedia:Attribution/No original research, Wikipedia:Attribution/Reliable sources as the "unifying" policy would be ATT.
4. Promote WP:RS to official policy instead of merely a guideline.
mike4ty4 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would this do? 

message: Hi.
A lot of the objections that have been raised seem to be counterable by a rewrite of the page, and don't truly demolish all hope of the merger. So why not keep the merger, but rewrite the page? mike4ty4 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the poll, the majority of the "opposed" comments were actually directed at the need for having a merger at all.  Most of these comments stated that things were fine as they were before the merge.  Only a (sizable) minority had issues with the language but not the merger.  Of course the Majority of all comments were in favor of the merger in general.  In short... there was and is not a clear consensus as to what to do.  A working party of people representing all POVs has been formed, which will review the comments and make recommendations when done.  I would say hold off on anything major until they have had a chance to do their work. Blueboar 19:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's been decided yet who is or is not going to be part of the working party;  I'm not sure there's even consensus that there will be a working party.  I think I've seen one proposal above about how to select the members of the working party.  Maybe there were more, but I don't think I saw a consensus on choosing one selection method.  --Coppertwig 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not just a matter of there being two opposing views. There are many more than two views on what should be on the merged page, if there is a merger, and assumptions about what that will be is what actually determines peoples opinions on the merger. DGG 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well actually I was not planning on rewriting the page myself. There a lot of objections, so I really don't think I could do a _good_ rewrite anyways, and if I did I would probably put it on a separate page as a new "proposal". mike4ty4 02:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite the page? 

message: Hi.
It does seem that a relationship between NOR and V does indeed exist. NOR means "no original research". This means that any original, ie. unpublished, research or thought of any form (including syntheses of published material, if the synthesis carries a new idea in it) is not allowed. So once again we are led to publication being required for inclusion -- V, or to use the proposed term, ATT. If a good way can be found to merge the two while at the same time not loosing the spirit of the rules, then I'd be all for it. mike4ty4 05:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but now that so many people are involved, and such a fuss has been made, I think we should demand more from the group. :) I would like them to think more fundamentally about the entire policy situation, a bit like Bainer has done, and propose something better than just a "copy-paste" merge. If we look at the very early drafts of ATT, such as this version, it actually more of an integrated policy than the current version. And why was the Tacitus section removed?? --Merzul 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems to make more sense. A quick up "cut and paste" merge doesn't really do what ATT is supposed to do, which is unite the two policies. If one wants to take a route like that (cut/paste) then one might as well just leave them separate instead of creating unnecessary and harmful confusion by just "cutting and pasting" them together. mike4ty4 00:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between NOR and V 

message: Just wondering.  Also, public or private?  As I have stated before, I would prefer private, but with a public summary and community involvement.
I've been taking a break from this page, but even so, it hasn't been popping up on my watchlist that often, so I guess I'm not the only one.
—  Armed Blowfish (mail) 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  With all the changes that have been made to A recently, I was kind of assuming it *was* progressing in private. JulesH 12:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not unless it has started without me :) I think since the idea of having a working group was contributed to by Jimbo, we're waiting for some input on his behalf. --bainer (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of anything going on in private with regard to this. WAS 4.250 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page looks dead to me, I have also wondered.  Is this a dead side path?  if so should we archive it off or delete it? Jeepday 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a silly question.  Talk pages are always archived (unless the entire article/whatever to which they are attached is deleted.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would leave this page active for now... at least until there is a plan in place on how to move forward on the underlying issues. I still see it as a useful page. I just think it's purpose has changed... from commenting on the merger, to brainstorming ideas on where to go from here.  Who knows, someone may come along and post the brilliant solution that we have been looking for. Blueboar 20:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to the idea, but is it really the public nature of this that is holding anyone back? What exactly is the advantage of this private Wiki? Personally, I would prefer a public thing, because while I'm not going to take part actively, I would certainly follow the discussion with interest. --Merzul 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... somehow I had missed this! --Merzul 23:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been wondering if maybe Jimbo was still suffering from jetlag or something and SlimVirgin hadn't yet heard back from him. I've been watching the page, but not posting much. What I have been doing is going through the major relevant articles and marking up a copy of ATT. It's given me some interesting insights into where it's possible to go from here. I'll try to post my thoughts on that after dinner when I get a chance to finish drafting it. As for the public vs. private issue, I've yet to see the reason for going private. Are we supposed to expect serial abuse or something? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge you to cease that immediately.  That's far too productive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]   ‹(-¿-)› 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How did we get up to 13 members? Make it 15, as now we need to balance it with two more supporters... Marskell 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working group #1 - Are we still doing this? 

message: This is last call to set up an alternative version of the remake. `'mikka 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it is not last call.  :))  Let's see what the other Working Groups do first.  Maybe we will all be invited to join one of the others.  --Rednblu 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WG#2 last call 

message: Hi.
I noticed there are more "opponents" than "proponents" listed in the working group. Is this a whiff of anti-ATT bias that I smell? mike4ty4 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; there are several different flavors of "no" here, some of whom oppose ATT for diametrically opposite reasons; the "yes" voices agree far more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. mike4ty4 07:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-ATT Bias??? 

message: The problem with the Wikipedia policy is that there is
no critique included with it.  The policy is badly flawed,
but stating the reasons here is a complete waste of time
as these words will soon be archived and forgotten, included
with all the rest of the drivel written here.  
Any policy to have any validity must include its critique
or it is just mindless nonsense.  Once the critique of the policy
is sharpened the policy itself will finally begin to approach
validity.01001 02:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, we need a critique. mike4ty4 20:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused... are you saying that we should include a section in each Policy that states why it is a bad policy? Blueboar 15:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps maybe not on the same page, but some page detailing a few arguments over various Wikipedia policies may be useful, and it would be to display arguments, not to say the policy is bad, but to show various common objections and criticisms. mike4ty4 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  These policies aint worth a crap without critique 

message: There has been a lot of talk about process, there have been nominations made and accepted, but the substantive discussion has stalled before starting.  Reasonable arguments have been presented on both sides of the issue of keeping discussion private, but a private discussion has not met with wide approval, and discussion has not begun in that format.  Therefore, I suggest we get a discussion started, and do so in a publicly viewable place.  
The discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group seems like a good place to bring the working group together.  The issue of participation in the group, and proper balance, should be addressed reasonably quickly.  One suitable approach could be to nominate one or two additional "proponent" members.  Another approach could be to get together all of the currently nominated and accepting members, and have them decide on a fair balance, which might require one or two nominated members to remove themselves from the group (I'm well aware that I might be one who is asked to step aside).  Or, we might simply start talking!
In any event, procedure can't be allowed to get in the way of opening up discussion.  Ideas need to be put forth, collaboration must begin, and the various parties, of various perspectives, need to start negotiating if this anticipated compromise is ever to occur.  So, let's get it started. zadignose 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Let's procede and see what happens. WAS 4.250 19:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well be bold as bored. ;-) It doesn't seem like we're going to hear from SlimVirgin; I left a message on her talk page on April 26th, but received no courtesy of a reply before my query was archived. Since she's merrily working away on ATT when she's not rousting LaRouchies, I guess that means we're being left to our own devices. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working Party - Let's Get It Started 

message: Currently the policy discusses what needs citations, but what about what does not need citations. Currently there is an essay called Wikipedia:Common knowledge, but it is just an essay and currently is not a policy or guideline. We should make it clear in the new policy things that don't need citations.--Sefringle 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an essay for a good reason -- it shouldn't be followed. If it's so common that it doesn't need to be cited, why are we writing it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the whole story.  Essays don't carry much weight, but they often are explaining a particular facet of policy.  Wikipedia:Common knowledge is just explaining that you can't use "common knowledge" as a source.  As far as your original comment about making it clear what things don't need sources, that's just not going to happen.  If it's ever in dispute, it needs a source per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Sxeptomaniac 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The real problem here is cases where somebody tries to make a procedural point by slapping  tags on truly uncontroversial statements (such as "There are many Usenet newsgroups about computer programming" or "Most years are not leap years"). The question is then whether one needs to appeal to WP:POINT (or, God forbid it, WP:IAR) when one summarily removes those tags, or whether we need some specific policy language to say that disputes in demonstrably bad faith do not count as disputes. I'm not quite decided myself, but lean towards thinking that relying on common sense here is preferable to more explicit rules; an attempt to codify the common sense in question will just give disruptive editors more chances of finding a loophole to wikilawyer through. –Henning Makholm 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best solution in that case would probably be taking it to the talk page.  Wikilawyers will expose themselves quickly, as they won't have any reasoning beyond "it's the rules."  Sxeptomaniac 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If the article cites any decent sources at the end, then the statements will be supported by those sources and the tags can be removed as such.  If it doesn't, then the article deserves to get tagged and questioned.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does not need to be cited

message: Is this discussion over? there have been no edits on this page since 6 June 2007.  That is like two centuries in real time.  Should we take the merge tags off of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and such? Jeepday (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it over?