Hi Ben, I am genuinely not sure I understand your criticism. I don't think that what you are saying applies to my decision in this case. I don't think I have deferred responsibility. Deferring responsibility would have been to not reply. I am concerned about whether we have the same understanding of the basic facts and arguments.
Please feel free to email me off list or even give me a ring to discuss. Regards, -Tennessee On 3 June 2015 at 12:44, Ben Finney <[email protected]> wrote: > Tennessee Leeuwenburg <[email protected]> writes: > > > Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the argument about harm > > minimisation, and the position that 'best interests' rather than > > majority rule is appropriate in some circumstances. Those are both > > valid points. > > What of the point that this is a decision to be made by an administrator > informed about the issues, and not by popular appeal? > > > Regardless of that, there is not a clear majority supporting changing > > the current settings. > > It seems you dismiss the idea that the administrator should do what is > best based on the facts and trade-offs, whether or not it is most > popular. You defer that responsibility instead to whichever group > marshals the most voices. > > That's a disappointment. > > -- > \ “People always ask me, ‘Where were you when Kennedy was shot?’ | > `\ Well, I don't have an alibi.” —Emo Philips | > _o__) | > Ben Finney > > _______________________________________________ > melbourne-pug mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug > -- -------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Leeuwenburg http://myownhat.blogspot.com/ "Don't believe everything you think"
_______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
