On 3/06/2015 12:44 PM, Ben Finney 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?
The term is "administrator" for a reason - I'd expect popular appeal to
have weight. The administrator of such lists generously serves the
community, not the other way around.
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 not how I read it - Tennessee offered his opinion, noted it
agreed with the majority of voices, and indicated he would not be
changing the status quo. The system works!
That's a disappointment.
To be frank, it sounds to me like you attempted to frame this discussion
in the way you wanted it framed, then expressed disappointment your it
didn't go your way.
For the record, I agree completely with both Tennessee and those voices
(while being constantly amazed at the this kind of adminstrivia
completely swamps the actual melbourne-pug content)
Mark
_______________________________________________
melbourne-pug mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
