2009/3/4 Anthony <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way? >> > > We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their > way, they don't really care in the first place, do they?
It's a matter of priorities. If a decision is made that I don't agree with I have to weigh up how bad it is that this bad decision has been made, how much harm me making a fuss will cause and how likely it is that me making a fuss will make any difference. (This varies depending on your definition of "fuss", obviously.) I think it this situation making a fuss is very unlikely to make any difference once a decision is made, and the pointless drama will detract from people improving the projects, so I am unlikely to make a fuss as long as I am confident the decision is a legal one. > I imagine >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority >> disagree with them. >> > > Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you > mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are. Accept that they've lost the argument and move on. > (This is assuming only options actually legal >> under the license are considered.) >> > > I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one > either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't > sufficient. How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
