Hi, Have we really forgotten what it is like to jointly work on something when every one is not a rah-erah cheerleader? Where we can have people contributing who, not being fully convinced, provide the loyal opposition viewpoint, without being dismissively labelled as whiners?
In a large project it is easy to carve off small groups of very like minded people, and doing so might even be nicer, since there is no differences of opinion; but then we have strong differences emerge between largely unrelated groups of people who are well along doing things at odds with each other. I think the ability to pull together on something even when one is mildly skeptical of the outcome would be invaluable to the strong proponents, since these skeptics provide an alternate viewpoint and also help provide a modicum of check and balance to irrational exuberance that might otherwise result. If something that is supposed to be as inclusive as the social committee can not deal with people who are also committed to the experiment, but are voiving cautinary notes, then I am afraid I don't see how they can come up with something widely accepted by an increasingly diverse social body at large. Dismissing co-operative people as whiners and and obstructionists if their views are not absolutely in line with the proponents loses the projects which display such characteristics of potentially useful contributions. However, if the social committe types are only looking for dutiful, "yes whatever you say, boss" kinda commentary, I guess I'm outa here. manoj -- 'Ooohh.. "FreeBSD is faster over loopback, when compared to Linux over the wire". Film at 11.' -- Linus Torvalds Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]