Subject:
|
Sig a probational condition?, philosophy of what we are doing (was Re: Jonathan Wilson's posting privileges on LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 1999 21:09:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@stopspamNOVERA.COM
|
Viewed:
|
461 times
|
| |
|
|
I just reviewed this subthread's responses and I didn't see a single
person, so far, who felt that use of a sig was mandatory, so I'm not
sure I'd either
- be all that upset about it the larger scheme of things...
or
- make it be one of the terms of probation
I misstated when I said that Tim was suggesting it as one of the reasons
for holding the vote. My apologies. However, I stand behind my caution
about emotions potentially swaying us into rash actions. I suggest we
drop the sig issue. Small potatoes.
But to the larger issue of how to proceed, my sense is that the CFV was
put together too quickly, and is flawed, because the CFV wording is
ambiguous.
I repeat, a series of up or down propositions, each of which
unambiguously and explicitly states what the effect will be if it is
passed, and which other propositions it supercedes, if any, is a far
better way to go. Adam has posted some replies claiming that with his
clarifications the ambiguity is removed. But those are merely commentary
unless formally marked as addenda to the CFV. I'd rather we start
afresh.
Getting such a CFV right is not easy and I don't think any swipes at
Adam for trying to take this task on, but not getting it right the first
time, are warranted. Rather, a vote of thanks, but with a request to try
again, is in order. (so moved, do I have a second?)
I realise that I was one of the folks calling for a CFV in order to move
things along. But standard practice in some parts of the net is often to
post the CFV in draft form, refine it and get consensus that it is a
soundly structured proposition, then make it final and see what
transpires. One need not agree with the terms of a proposition to assist
with the refinement of an unsound one into a sound one.
To those that say we are overanalysing... we are. But that's OK. We MUST
get this right, be precise, and be impartial or we will have sown the
seeds of the destruction of our community.
"What is fair" can be ambiguous, but justice itself must be impartial,
emotionless, and unambiguous, or it is unfair on the face of it. Life
isn't fair but I'd prefer we act as fairly as we can under the
circumstances.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
