On 01/18/2014 01:42 PM, Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 18:07 GMT Gregory Pittman wrote: > >> As we approach LGM 2014, it would be good to know that at some point we >> all are rowing in the same direction. We need to put aside differences >> of opinion and consider how we can make LGM an attractive and >> trouble-free event for everyone. >> >> Even without some artificial code that we might sprinkle holy water on >> and make sacred, I think we have established that most of us have an >> opinion that wants to keep LGM a friendly event for everyone who attends. >> >> Let's face it, LGM isn't a democracy in some elective/voting sense, >> since it is very unclear who has voting rights and whether all voting >> rights are the same. We don't have a clear way of generating consensus. >> We may have opinions for and against, but the (apparent) absence of an >> opinion may be an indicator of unawareness of the vote or even what it's >> about (or just being fed up with it all). And someone who has never >> attended before and never will again has a vote too. >> > > I think you are reading too much into this. There is a practical reason why > voting for the next venue happened/happens in a face to face meeting. > Somebody need to (1) volunteer, (2) be trusted by the community, to > *organize* the next event. > > The latter is most rare - it is not as if any random keen 16-year-old can > cope with the logistics of hundreds of people from different countries > arriving, nor any random unseen unheard of rarely participating person be > trusted to volunteer to organize. > >> I also think it is magical thinking to believe that somehow this can all >> be hashed out at LGM. Just look at what happens as the venue for the >> next LGM gets "decided" at LGM. The vote, such as it is, takes place >> only with those attending the meeting, as if those not present don't >> care and don't matter. I suppose if they did care, they might be more >> likely not to care about decisions they were left out of. >> >> I think we all have experiences with people who are obsessed with some >> issue. All they can talk about is their issue. People don't realize how >> IMPORTANT this is. How ESSENTIAL it is. About all you can do is to avoid >> this person, not start up a conversation with this person, unless you >> like to argue. In an organization, this can be toxic. Let's try not to >> drift in that direction. >> > > I think you are advocating what some called "social bullying". Many LGM > attendees are there because they are passionate about *something*. Of course > they will, and rightfully so, should talk about their ONE IDEA all the time. > That's the whole point. >
I have no idea what you're talking about, but it seems you only give an example of what I'm talking about. Thanks for that. Greg _______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
