![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/d977e460744bc9591586ffd46b60adf0.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On 8. Aug 2021, at 12:48, Adrien Glauser
wrote: It's simple, Richard: - you want to question, contest or otherwise undermine presuppositions that will require to (re) build part of the context behind the initiative and trigger further arguments? awesome! start new topic on the docs ML or on GitHub, so that other volunteers working with me can have their voices heard too (I am not their speakperson outside of the scope of the request at the origin of this thread and they are not subscribed to this ML let alone follow this topic)
And why should I? If the nebulous “they” can’t be bothered talking to the very people who wrote all the content “they” want to use on “their” new platform, why should I do extra work just to be able to continue doing what I’ve happily been doing for years? There appears to be a significant gap in logic between your expectation that this Project bends to your will and does what you tell us to do, and the fact you seem totally evasive to answering most questions or providing any justification as to why we should all do what you tell us to do. I outright refuse to do anything in support of these revamped docs until somebody provides - some justification as to why I should - some explanation as to what benefit to it should bring to the community - some evidence that this endeavour hasn’t just been cooked up in private places without any meaningful effort to actually discuss the impacts with the hundreds of current wiki contributors I don’t think those 3 standards are unfair nor hard to meet, after all at least one person besides me has already asked questions which, if answered, would have gone some way to meeting those standards. But in each case those questions stand unresolved, so my enthusiasm for this effort remains NULL. Regards, Richard