x...@freenetproject.org writes:
> On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 06:49:04 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> It’s been over a week now, could you please post the data with or
>> without the evaluation?
>
> I offered something like that at both the beginning and the end of my reply
> to
> Ian
On Tuesday, December 06, 2016 06:49:04 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> It’s been over a week now, could you please post the data with or
> without the evaluation?
I offered something like that at both the beginning and the end of my reply to
Ian the last week and got no "Yes, do it" from him.
Arne Babenhauserheide writes:
> x...@freenetproject.org writes:
>> There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about stage
>> 3,
>> namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because they look like a sybil
>> attack.
>
> I don’t like this
x...@freenetproject.org writes:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:29:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> x...@freenetproject.org writes:
>> > There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about
>> > stage 3, namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because they look
>> >
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:18:36 PM Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 27/11/16 21:08, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> > That's OK, here's what happened:
> > While most participants of the poll from IRC have been known in the
> > community for years, 70% of the anonymous FMS participants created
On 27/11/16 21:08, x...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:29:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
>> x...@freenetproject.org writes:
>>> There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about
>>> stage 3, namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:29:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> x...@freenetproject.org writes:
> > There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about
> > stage 3, namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because they look
> > like a sybil attack.
>
> I don’t like
x...@freenetproject.org writes:
> There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about stage
> 3,
> namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because they look like a sybil
> attack.
I don’t like this behind-closed-doors-guessing-about-sybil. Instead,
when I read the title,
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 06:48:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 12:30 PM, x...@freenetproject.org
> > First of all, I *am* completely willing to do these difficult decisions.
> >
> > Just not as a volunteer-looking-to-be-hired, the job decision has to
> > happen first.
>
> So
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 12:30 PM, x...@freenetproject.org
wrote:> I really don't understand how this could have been such a roadblock. If
> there is obvious abuse then we just ignore that feedback. Why is this so
> hard? It seems like you're looking for reasons to declare a democratic
> process is
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 05:39:09 PM Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 11:18 AM, x...@freenetproject.org
> wrote:
> > Your initial goal with the poll was to prevent embezzlement of the funds.
>
> No, it was to choose priorities in a fair democratized way, as opposed to a
> small number
Your initial goal with the poll was to prevent embezzlement of the funds.
No, it was to choose priorities in a fair democratized way, as opposed to a
small number of people making all the decisions in a chat room that most people
aren't part of (which resulted in what appears to be either
Ian, this is inevitably gonna be longer than the length of mails you prefer,
BUT: Its *main* goal is to fix the issue of you having to reply to even more,
longer mails in the first place.
So please read it, PLEASE :)
Really, PLEASE read it :)
- Your initial goal with the poll was to prevent
13 matches
Mail list logo
