> I think what the community has expressed is a skepticism of the

overall

> value of the idea. You just haven't convinced us yet and several

people

> have explained why they are not convinced. You have not adequately
> addressed the concerns that have been expressed.

Please scan the thread top-bottom (I did just now) and find which
concerns were raised and not addressed. About how adequately, that's
subjective, but please point out what *you* think I didn't addressed.

>
> What you have done is made it sound like as soon as a wiki is

created as

> the central point of contact for all things Firebird that it will
> somehow blossom into a wonderful resource that is much better than

what

> we now have. I think we, collectively, are invested elsewhere and

know

> that this result will take much more work that that.

Not "somehow blossom" at all. I explicitly stated what I think are the
ingredients for it to blossom, and none of them were any magic.

Much more work than what? What do you think I underestimated,
specifically?

>
> Don't make the mistake of thinking that we do not know what a wiki

is or

> what value it has or how it works. We do.

On the contrary, I have much trust in this community's abilities and
that's exactly why I think we should allow it to express itself more
directly. It's top on the list of assumptions, and I hope I made
myself clear about that by now.

> But from what I've read we
> don't think it is all that wonderful as a solution to the problems

the

> Firebird project has.
>
> This conversation has correctly identified many of those problems.

You

> have proposed a new idea that will help with *some* of them.
>

I think it would be helpful to pinpoint which problems are we talking
about, on both parts, solved and not solved. Especially I'd like to
hear about unsolved ones.

> Now, (to finally get to the question at hand) if you really believe

in

> this idea you need to do whatever it takes to convince the

community.

> That includes stepping forward and volunteering to create the wiki

and

> keep it running.

Please read my reply to Paul Vinkenoog above, in case you haven't, and
comment on my arguments about why I think it won't work just because
me (or anyone else) puts up a wiki somewhere.

>
> You also need to do the political work to get others to contribute

to

> it. I don't think anyone else is going to join you in this effort

until

> they are convinced of the benefit and until they see you are

actually

> going somewhere with this. In other words, just proposing the idea

is

> not nearly enough to get it done.
>
> Does that help you understand the comment?
>

I want partisans, so I'm already doing political work :)

I'm not just proposing the idea. There's a quick plan above I'd wish
it discussed and improved.

> P.S. I just saw your follow-up message and I'm glad you recognize

what

> you said came across as a bit naive.

I wasn't recognizing my reply as naive at all, just aggressive and pedantic (which I hate myself for sometimes), and that's what I was
apologizing for.


So please keep addressing any problems, maybe this will go somewhere.
And please see that I did addressed your concerns many for which I
didn't get any reply back.