On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 10:33 -0800, John Plocher wrote:
> I think we are in violent agreement.
I respectfully disagree.
> This is why I qualified my call
> for visionaries with "who are committed to effectively engaging with the
> community".
I think we'd be better off with *people* committed to effectively
working with the community to build consensus.
You may not be aware that in certain segments of the engineering
community, the term "visionary" is most commonly used in a mocking sense
(accompanied with a mimed inhalation which implies significant
pharmaceutical influence on the vision).
So the word does not mean to others what it means to you.
> What I don't want is a passive-aggressive bunch of nobodies who don't
> have any ideas of their own, but are happy to get in the way of people
> who are trying to do something - visionaries rather than bureaucrats.
I don't think there's anyone involved who's short on ideas of their own.
I think we have some significant disagreements about where we are and
where we should go, and when there are honest disagreements about what
forms of change constitute progress, one person's visionary is another
person's bureaucrat.
- Bill
