| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> Before Todd wears yet another hammering, a quick note in support, feel free
> to hunt me instead.
>
> Contrary to the culture of entitlement popular in the US (you know, I'm owed
> stuff just 'cause I'm here, ne'er-do-wells protesting 'I have rights' etc) I
> don't think people have rights or even enforceable interests in the content
> on Lugnet. It's Todd's (and Suzanne's I guess, haven't quite wrapped my
> head around all that). He can pretty much do whatever he wants, and that's
> entirely cool. We either find it interesting and log on, or not and sod off.
>
> A consensus on Lugnet might be interesting to Todd, but what he wants to do
> with his site is way more important.
>
> I wouldn't mind an MB database etc etc etc, but I have no problem with Todd
> deciding what he wants to do and what he doesn't. I can't be bothered to do
> it myself, and can hardly complain because someone else is not of a mood to
> do so.
>
> Try telling me I'm unnecessarily severe in some of my calls on what I do
> with my site, and see how that changes my plan ;-)
>
> Even if Todd was being unreasonable (which he's not), that's fine,
> its his site!
Hear Hear.
Very well put, Richard.
I would hasten to add that the contribution of time, money, scans,
information, etc. to Lugnet is subject to the Terms and Conditions, just
like participation here. Merely contributing something doesn't give one some
sort of blanket power of saying how things ought to be done.
Certainly the larger contributors (by whatever metric you care to choose
except, perhaps, body mass) have opinions that Todd would be wise to heed,
but he's not bound to do so, the market for charity is a market nonetheless.
That is, if in future you don't like how things are done, stop contributing.
I've made that very point to someone once and did effect a behavioural
change, actually.
But that's as far as it can or should go. Lugnet is neither a democracy nor
a commune. Now, if someone came up and said to Todd, "I have a million USD
that I am ready to contribute if only you'll allow a clone DB" that might be
different, big contributors SHOULD get a bigger say, it's only fair. I
suspect Todd might turn it down, though. (a million doesn't go as far as it
used to, after all). Once that contribution was made under the T&C in
effect, that's it, it should no longer have any influencing power (would
that our political system worked that way), except the second order effect
of whether further contributions are forthcoming.
I'd love to see Todd get his softwareish things to the point where he could
enable others to give a clone DB the same look and feel by giving them the
software to do so but I suspect that's a long long time off, if ever.
To the clone DB agitators... Put your money where your mouth is, how much is
it personally worth to you to have it? If among the lot of you you can only
raise 1000 bucks, it shouldn't be done, as it can't be done for that little.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
