Re: Social Committee proposal
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:14:57 +0100, Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>
said:
> All that you say is true, but it is also true that *right now* we
> all abide by various social and cultural norms which are of various
> shapes and forms.
> The forming of a group which would discuss these subjective matters
> in an organized fashion wouldn't make them any more or less
> important, but it would give them a much more fair hearing (or at
> least more fair than a typical flamewar).
> As far as governing goes, I explicitly said in the proposal that the
> committee should not have many powers, and indeed that its initial
> instance should have an even more reduced set of powers from one
> that we could envision it to have, so that we don't rush anything.
Well, Iam willing to give it a shot. But bear in mind
everything you say could have been said about -legal before it was
created; but -legal has little representation from the vast majority
of developers, and I am not sure the opinions that hold sway on
-legal are really representative of the opinions held by the
developer body at large.
The soc ctte might also fall into such a state (or it might
not, which is why I am willing to give it a shot). but as a new
american citizen living under the leadership of President Bush; let
us say I am inherently skeptical of a new governing body created with
a mandate as fuzzy as "determine acceptable social/cultural values,
by majority rule if need be, and eventually enforce them".
And that brings me full circle; leaning on the skeptical side
of indifference to this proposal, but willing to cut the proponents
some slack, and give them some rope.
manoj
--
The trouble with superheros is what to do between phone booths. Ken
Kesey
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: