On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> wrote: > > Do I understand your wording correctly as meaning that whatever the > outcome of the process, we need a good reason not to follow it — and > that you do not consider the weaknesses I already described as good > reasons? >
What weaknesses exactly? I have reviewed the thread "Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)", and specifically your posts to it, and I don't see any substantive weaknesses pointed out by you. On May 5th I asked: So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird > tangent, that everyone is comfortable with my proposal? You did not respond. You subsequently decided to act like a child and refuse to use Google Docs because you felt I had insulted you in an off-list discussion, is that what you're referring to? Please be more specific. You've said a lot of things, most of which I found unpersuasive or just plain obstructionist. Ian. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
