On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:02:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:40:42 +0200, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> said:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 06:31:22PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Every vote, especially vote regarding changes to foundation
> >> documents, require a modicum of due diligence on the part of the
> >> electorate. People too lazy to put in the effort required to
> >> compare two documents, and who want to be spoon fed predigested pap
> >> are not those whose opinion ought to matter.
>
> > I don't think it's about lazyness.
>
> > If a voting ballot entitled "editorial changes" comes up out of the
> > blue (and I'm sure this has happened for some who do not read all
> > mailinglists), people's first impression may be that this is
> > something "unimportant", even if they wouldn't think so when they'd
> > only have a look at the changes.
>
> Firstly, in my opinion, the changes were really editorial:
> there was no normative change in the SC. I do not recall anyone at
> all disputing that until after the vote was held.
Well, OK; fair enough.
What I'm trying to do, though, is trying to pinpoint why exactly so many
people called called the subject misleading, in an effort to avoid it
from happening again in the future.
I think that's because the adjective used in the subject implied a
judgement call, which isn't something that should appear on a ballot (a
ballot should be objective, except for, optionally, a rationale). I have
suggested that a few times in the past, but the only replies I've gotten
were something along the lines of "you're insulting me" or "it wasn't
misleading", except on one[1] occasion, where I'm not even sure whether
it was meant as ironically or not.
One could say that the argument "it was misleading!" was just invented
by people only interested in getting the previous GR undone, but I would
see that as shortsighted.
[1] http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/yes-2004-04-29-20-04
> Secondly, you judge books by their cover?
I do base my first impression on them by their cover, yes.
> People by their skin color?
Not by their skin color, no. But, at least on a subconcious level, I do
generally base my first impression on the way they look.
> emails by their subject alone?
Subject: make m0ney fast!1! muibuqckx/1
I don't know about you, but I won't even open a mail with the above
subject.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature