On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> politicians who attempt to limit voters' choices, are politicians who > manipulate the whole principles of democratic voting. Phil, I dont nearly have the time I would like to participate in this organization and you are one of the reasons that I am personally not vocal on this list. While most posts are constructive and attempt to help one further their issues your posts generally do not. I don't need you to lecture me on the evils of authoritative systems. The way you drone on with comments like the above implies that others have hidden agendas with aims to destroy the world as we know and your simply trying to save the unwashed masses from their machinations. Any post authored by you which is longer than a single word, "batched", tends to raise my blood pressure to unhealthy limits. The reason governing systems don't employ direct democracy is that it doesn't scale. We can't vote on every clause for every law we might elect to have. Voters tend to decide major issues: Automated publishing system vs. Human controlled w/ manual inspection. Once the main issue is decided then everyone digs in and crafts the best solution that fulfills this goal. To date, the only person I recall staking out a position that a manual process is preferred is you. For my two cents worth: Given the size of the group and the demands in terms of packages to support, automated publishing solutions turn a subjective process into an objective process. Any subjective control that needs to be wielded can be handled by the bug process. Increasing the ease and throughput of package development will be beneficial and is unlikely to bring an end to democracy. Not even the US IRS attempts to individually review every tax return. Automation, and the development of an effective exceptions process, allows one to handle this with increased efficiency. While you have whined incessantly on this list about amendments, I don't recall actually seeing an amendment. Stop complaining about how you should have the right to control the ballot before you start turning out some verbage. If your changes have merit, then people will listen and incorporate your ideas. Your current strategy seems to employ a delaying tactic in the hopes that everyone will get tired and leave so you may maintain the status quo. If you want to be heard, then lets see some original ideas that don't try to codify the status quo or stop whining about the downfall of the democratic state. If you instead choose to continue attacking the governing process or try to convince me of your virtue, don't bother as I'm tired of those tactics already. I'm sorry my post doesn't forward the discussion beyond stating: +1 to an automated process _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
