Hi David,
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:33 +0800, David Nelson wrote:
> I must admit that I don't really agree with you, Michael. There is
> always need for organization and coordination in any human enterprise.
Sure - we are all agreed on this :-) the question is whether that
requires formal job titles, or whether it scales and adapts better with
informal relationships backed up by transparency.
> > Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of
> > racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political
> > intolerance.
..
> Again, I'm afraid don't agree with you. One of the negative things
> about many FOSS projects is the kind of negative behavior, attitudes
> and treatment that people sometimes have to put up with - there have
> been several threads in the TDF lists where it has occurred. I suspect
> that there would be plenty of people who would support what I've
> written.
So - if you have cases where you would want to exclude people from
membership for these reasons, or to censor them - please do post links;
if people are not prepared to point the finger, then there is little
purpose served by the rule surely ? :-)
Furthermore, I have a vast political intolerance for parties that lobby
for software patents (indeed I've lobbied against them), I have a
near-null tolerance for some religions that involve human sacrifice
[ there are some still extant ] and/or the consumption of endangered
species, and I have a similar acute distaste for terrorism, and Israeli
oppression.
Bingo - I just broke most of the rules. The current paragraph with its
incredibly broad scope forbids me to express any of these things in any
context - as such is over-broad as well as un-necessary :-)
The excellent text forbidding ad-hominem attacks, abuse etc. seems to
cover all the interesting situations of inter-personal conflict that we
want to proscribe.
> In any case, you've had lots of time to read and comment. ;-) Me, I
> was extremely concerned from day #1 of the launch that TDF had not
> prepared things properly, and that it did not have a "draft
> constitution" to put before people right at the outset. But instead of
> just standing back and criticizing from a distance, I wanted to get
> involved in remedying the problem.
And you did a great job :-) as I say - don't get the impression that I
don't like the overall result; it is IMHO nearly perfect.
> In any case, I've done my best to be of practical help, and you guys
> are free to do what you will. ;-)
So - again, thank you ! it was wonderful to have you engaged. That we
disagree on some details doesn't nullify the great work you put in here,
the useful checks & balances, critical thinking, textual review etc. was
much appreciated by me at least.
Thanks,
Michael.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
