On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Joe Developer <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Joe Developer <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Liam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Feb 15, 10:49 am, Jim Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Liam <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > > Interesting... Have you considering allowing signup via BrowserID? >>> > > Recommended! >>> > >>> > > I wasn't aware of BrowersID. I just tried it with their demo site >>> and was >>> > >>> > underwhelmed. The signin process was not fast, and in the end I was >>> forced >>> > to create another password. I much prefer OAuth. >>> >>> Read deeper. You sign up once with a BrowserID provider (eventually >>> most webmail services will be) and then have one-click registration >>> with BrowserID-based services. It is the future of web logins. >>> >>> As for my off-topic comment, my main point is that issue advocacy by >>> large groups of poorly-informed people has a corrosive effect on >>> policy-making. It is not the solution to the ownership of >>> representatives by corporate interests thru campaign contributions, >>> etc. But you're right, it's probably inevitable given the ease of >>> manipulating people via social media. >>> >> >> I think this is a discussion worth having, though this may or may not be >> a good venue. >> Personally I think that you are selling yourself short by implying that >> you are inexorably and permanently poorly-informed, Liam :D >> >> While it seems, to me, that imposed or adopted governance models are >> subject to cyclical trends, I would be surprised if direct democracy isn't >> one of the impending 'experiments' - and why not try to see what could make >> it a positive experience? >> >> As for what you bring up in terms of manipulation, isn't that the current >> reality? And might that not be exacerbated by limited choices in terms of >> representative platforms, not to mention limited opportunities for >> fine-grained input into informing their mandate? >> > > ... And that perspective is why I find the current format and > functionality of "Coalitions" unfortunate. Ah Well. > And as the driving force behind Coalitions, I completely agree with you -- as long as the emphasis is on "current". This is why the site is alpha. It doesn't yet implement enough of my vision for what it should be to even warrant being called beta. I certainly intend to correct that over time, but I also want thoughtful people like yourself to provide useful feedback to help drive not only the implementation but the evolution of the vision. -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
