Latest revision as of 19:19, 7 August 2021

This discussion page doubles as the main project page for this wiki.

TODO list

Things to do include:

Ease of use

Visual Editor

* The VisEd is installed but only new pages (plus the Main Page, oddly) seem to be WYSIWYGed, whereas (for example) this page is not (ie the 'Edit source' click-tab appears above, but the VisEd's 'Edit' doesn't).

Discussion pages

* It's vital these are easy to use! The options seem to be:=
** (as is) ie WP-style Discussion pages
** Structured Discussions (aka 'Flow', see eg https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Structured_Discussions )
** PageDisqus - DQ embed per page (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageDisqus )
** SectionDisqus - DQ embed per section (but has issue: see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SectionDisqus )

Administration

Permissions

* Right now, you don't even have to log in to edit just about anything. Shocking!
* The actual CCllrs should probably all be Admins.
* Wikimedian Namespaces will probably become essential before very long, and will need to be administered consistently.

Content

Corpora

* LPPs
* FW2040 & LDP (& Locality Plan? LOIP?)
* SCDC (why?)

Other bodies

* PARCA
* UARG?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== TODO list ==
 This discussion page doubles as the main project page for this wiki.
+=TODO list=
 Things to do include:
- * Permissions
- ** Right now, you don't even have to log in to edit just about anything.
- ** The actual CCors should probably all be Admins, but not even EMD is yet.
+==Ease of use==
- * Visual Editor
+=====Visual Editor=====
- ** Only the MainPage seems to be WYSIWYGed
+ * The VisEd is installed but only new pages (plus the [[Main_Page|Main Page]], oddly) seem to be WYSIWYGed, whereas (for example) this page is not (ie the 'Edit source' click-tab appears above, but the VisEd's 'Edit' doesn't).
- * Discussion (options are:-)
+=====Discussion pages=====
+ * It's vital these are easy to use! The options seem to be:=
  ** (as is) ie WP-style Discussion pages
- ** Structured Discussions (see eg https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Structured_Discussions )
+ ** Structured Discussions (aka 'Flow', see eg https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Structured_Discussions )
  ** PageDisqus - DQ embed per page (see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:PageDisqus )
  ** SectionDisqus - DQ embed per section (but has issue: see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SectionDisqus )
+==Administration==
- * Corpus
+=====Permissions=====
- ** LPPs
+ * Right now, you don't even have to log in to edit just about anything. Shocking!
- ** FW2040 & LDP (& Locality Plan?)
+ * The actual CCllrs should probably all be Admins.
- ** SCDC (why?)
+ * Wikimedian Namespaces will probably become essential before very long, and will need to be administered consistently.
+==Content==
+=====[[Corpora]]=====
+ * [[LPPs/Corpus|LPPs]]
+ * FW2040 & LDP (& Locality Plan? LOIP?)
+ * SCDC (why?)
+=====Other bodies=====
  * PARCA
+ * UARG?
-== LPP consultation question ==
-Since 2019, local communities in Scotland have had the right to create a so-called 'Local Place Plan' for their area (eg a village, suburb or estate). Local Place Plans have to be "taken into account" by the planning authority (ie Highland Council, for Lochaber). However, the planning authority has the right to 'invalidate' (ie ignore) a Local Place Plan in certain circumstances; these are to be laid down in forthcoming planning regulations.
-The Scottish Government is presently consulting on those forthcoming regulations. Many of the points at issue concern how Local Place Plans are to be prepared by so-called 'community bodies'. (The definition of a community body has already been laid down in law and is not part of the consultation.)
-One possible view that ONLY deficiencies in the FINAL draft, including the process of producing that draft, should enable a planning authority to invalidate a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it. But a stricter view is that deficiencies in EARLIER drafts, including the process of producing those drafts, might rightly enable a planning authority to invalidate the FINAL draft of a Local Place Plan against the wishes of the community body that has prepared it.
-Do you agree with the stricter view?
-(A plausible example of a process deficiency might be this:- failing to actively seek the views of disabled or elderly residents at a sufficiently early stage in the preparation process to significantly influence the finalised Place Plan.)
-[ Aside: a few of the ScotGov questions use a very specific legalism: "to have regard to (something)," which imposes a duty to (a) be familiar with, to (b) be aware of divergences from, and to (c) be able to provide a reason (or reasons) for each divergence from it. On the other hand, the bar set for such reasons is not particularly high: appropriately 'clear', 'proper', and 'legitimate' reasons need not be 'good', 'cogent', or 'compelling', for instance.  Specifically, the English/Welsh High Court has found that "to have regard to" something obliges a body to "have and give clear reasons" for any departure from it.  Furthermore, these clear reasons must "objectively be proper reasons, or legitimate reasons".  However, to say that the reasons must be "good", "cogent" or "compelling" would be raising the bar "far higher than is appropriate in this context." (in Regina v Schools Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin)).  Scottish case law has (so far) followed this precedent. ]