On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 02:28 -0800, Franklin Gordon Bynum wrote: > Michael, I just don't think many people share your criticisms. They are > appreciated, but ultimately unpersuasive.
It's difficult to tell what people think when they don't speak up. I'm sure you aren't persuaded, from other posts you've made, it's clear you're a 'board loyalist' and firmly on the side of the establishment. > I share many of Nathan's feelings. I can't possibly understand how the > Sainte-Laguë and Borda methods would be implemented here. Dividing > into factions would be utterly ridiculous. The "technical" and the > "non-technical" users will each have representation? This is > counterproductive, to say the least. It's not so much the details as the point of creating a form of proportional representation. I'm talking more about acknowledging real divisions, like allowing people to opt-out of AFS if using 'fs' irritates them, for example. Another natural division is resource usage, including how much hand-holding a person will need based on their technical knowledge. I personally need very little and don't wish to pay for help that will, inevitably, have to hold people's hands. > We would not be able to function as well as we do today if we were > bridled with byzantine formulas that reflected contrived divisions. Again, these are not contrived divisions, and denying their existence will lead to problems later. > More than that, again, Hcoop is not a trust. The decisions are largely > not made in advance, because they cannot be with a technology service > provider. Moreover, inability to make certain kinds of binding > decisions in advance is to a certain extent part of the corporate form > itself, as well. On the contrary, I think the road map has been planned in advance and hasn't budged an inch. Michael Potter _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
