... common grounds .... s/coersion/soft persuasion/g
I do not know why I misunderstood the correct meaning of coercion....
Now I know.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 05:07:43PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I am sick of seeing too many votes/policy-discussion/... to force other
> > volunteers to obey particular action patters. Basic principle of this
> > project should be more inclusive one and volunteer one. It should not
> > be a one of exclusion and enforcement. Volunteer project should be
> > based on coercion.
> I don't think coercion is a good thing and I don't think that to ask
I agree :-)
I wanted to say "non-forcible soft persuasion" instead in here.
> other volunteers not to do particular acts is the same as "to force
> other volunteers to obey". This is what I thought "Nothing in this
> constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project"
> So, the rest of the argument falls because of the above mistake in the
> first step. However, the conclusion:-
The incorrect choice of word (logos) lead me to bad logic.
> > Exclusion attitudes will only narrow our user/developer base and
> > benefits none of us whatever opinion we have. We should thrive to find
> > common ground.
> shows that you can state a good conclusion despite a bad step. Maybe
> that conclusion is a common ground?