Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
> > [a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 02:47:11PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Do stop waving that around. I rounded up enough people in under an
> hour, just by asking on IRC, last weekend (but haven't bothered to
> chase them up just yet, for reasons of my own). We'll go through the
> formalities at a suitable time (which is likely to be fairly soon).
I like to think they're holding out for something better. If only a
better rationale.
I know that if nothing better were possible that you'd be able to get
sufficient seconds.
> > [b] other people posting, ostensibly in favor of his proposals seem to
> > think there is some other point,
>
> You've missed the point here. People have different
> motivations. Asking "Why do you personally think we should drop
> non-free?" is reasonable, but don't expect an answer from everybody (I
> don't particularly want to answer that question), and don't expect
> everybody to give the same answer.
I'm not expecting that.
However, people with different motivations can cooperate, once
they know what issues they're dealing with, at least.
> I'm fairly sure people have a lot
> of different reasons on both sides. Asking "Why are you asking the
> question?", which is what you've done a few times now in various
> forms, is silly.
It's better to look a bit silly, and get good specs, than it is to put
a lot of effort in the wrong direction.
> > [c] some of these other people might very well have other
> > proposals to offer.
>
> Bogus. Anybody can offer a proposal at any time (a few people even
> have). I've dealt with several more in private; I didn't pull either
> of my two proposals out of thin air. Handwaving about proposals that
> nobody has made is silly.
A prerequisite for a good proposal [as opposed to shooting from
the hip] is understanding the problems being addressed.
> > > Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless
> > > by design?
> >
> > NO!
> >
> > That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal.
> >
> > While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no
> > voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what
> > happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot
> > options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting.
>
> Pure FUD (based on self-evidently ridiculous assumptions).
You appear to have stated that you do not care to discuss the merits of
your proposal, and that you wish other people wouldn't, as well. That
still smacks of insincerity.
I agree that the "toothless by design" proposal that he was referring
to has been superseded by a better proposal.
--
Raul
Reply to: