On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 11:19 +0100, Mark Shuttleworth wrote: > and yet everyone will have their > idea of what piece is the most valuable to the most people. The > specification describes the things that we believe are the most > important for the most people. Those pieces are not revealed as > tooltips, but they are more easily accessible.
Is this not the kind of attitude I was talking about? Everyone will have ideas and will have valuations, but instead of combining intelligently an amalgamation between positions you've jumped right into defining a group of people who are not everyone and that we're destined to have insoluble ideas. Ironic is that you could somehow ignore "everyone" and yet be claiming to serve "most people's" needs. This sort of logic is obviously false, if your not ignoring everyone then you must see value in it and should praise it more in the language, if your ignoring it then your not serving most people, only your own perception of most people. This language to me is combustable in the community, we gotta all get better at avoiding this sort of thing to better avoid rocking the community boat. Martin, _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
