On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:16 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.d > e> > wrote: > > > > > > > Ian writes: > > > > > > Please be more specific. You've said a lot of things, most of > > > which I > > > found unpersuasive or just plain obstructionist. > > > > This is roughly how you reacted to what I said. Did you assume good > > faith? > > > > You ignored my request to explain which criticisms of the process > you're > referring to and instead are attempting to deflect it into some kind > of > meta-discussion, in which I have little interest. >
I think I've stayed silent on this for too long now... So here are the criticisms about the process: 1) the outcome of the process is non-binding 2) the perimeter of the process isn't well defined: your first email talks about a "Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources", the latest is about "Financial allocation". I've missed the step where we've concluded that the resources are all financial. 3) in a democracy there are rules on who gets to vote (who qualifies for citizenship)... As my other thread made clear, here it hasn't been defined/thought through... I thought we knew better than that, having worked on a project where Sybil is always a concern Florent
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
