And I realized you were saying someone else sent it to you personally.
So I could either feel bad about my current mistake, or feel great
about my lack of a previous mistake.
I'll choose to watch YouTube videos.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Luiji Maryo
Okay, I'm definitely sending this to
tsc-devel(a)lists.secretchronicles.de. If I'm not, then GMail is broken.
I'd just call it Meritocracy and leave it at that.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu> wrote:
> Luiji Maryo <luiji(a)users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> The RFC looks fine, with the only thing I'd add is that calling it
>> Democratic might be a misnomer. When only a select set of people are
>> permitted to vote, it's really an Oligarchy, although we may suggest
>> it's a Meritocratic Oligarchy since people are supposed to be selected
>> based on their merit as determined by contributions as opposed to
>> inheritance or anything of the sort.
> How could you know! I was actually planning to make TSC project
> leadership heriditary! ;-)
> While you are probably correct from a terminology point of view, I have
> the feeling that calling it “oligarchic” is not going to do us a favour
> from the user’s point of view. Our decision model is still better than
> the often seen dictatorship model, and I’d like to emphasise this by
> phrasing the preamble accordingly. So we might step back from calling it
> “democratic”, but we shouldn’t use a negatively connotated term such as
> “oligarchy” instead. Maybe we can use “legitimated by the majority of
> the people developing the project” or so. Maybe you want to suggest an
> alternative wording of the preamble?
> As I’ve outlined earlier in this thread, I’m not really happy with
> giving *everyone* voting rights, because it is our limited free time
> working power we put into this project. So if that was what you are
> suggesting, I fear I cannot follow that. A purely democratic development
> model is going to fall to the trolls, and I’m not going to spend my
> free-time efforts on a troll mountain. Okay, slightly exaggerated, but
> you get it.
> DarkAceZ <jbrrissler(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Will these polls be available for non-members to see? We might want to keep
>> in mind what they think while voting, if a majority of them lean towards
>> one option.
> The call for votes, containing voting options, is going to be publicly
> available. The same goes for the voting result. As for the information
> on who voted on which option, this is only available for open votes,
> which is the default voting procedure, but every team member can request
> a vote to be taken out covertly, in which case nobody (not even the team
> members) are going to see who voted on which option; only the result
> will be public.
> Also, next time please send your message to the mailinglist and not to
> me personally :-)
> Blog: http://www.guelkerdev.de
> GnuPG key: F1D8799FBCC8BC4F