Hello, On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:33:36PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Sonntag, 13. September 2009 17:41:36 schrieb Sergiu Ivanov: > > > My strategy is to try to fix some decisions which tend to appear in > > the flow of discussion and include them in some (temporary) roadmap. > > Thus all the way throughout the discussion items get into the plan > > and, even if some details generate an infinite loop, I can always > > implement the already included points. > > That's a nice way to keep the flow. > > If the roadmap is public, you can then even point people tehre and say "Are > there parts in here, we can all agree on?" and try breaking the loops that > way.
Yes, it's exactly what I do :-) > It's hard to do that, though, if the discussion is a prerequisite to > beginning at all. I hope the suggestion for the wiki helps reducing > the number of stopping points for writing texts (but doesn't > increase maintenance load). I think it will. I only have to go through this crazy University week and then I'll have time to do what I have promised. > It's a similar point as point as the one with a random universe: To > us it will always appear special because it allows life, but if it > didn't allow life, we wouldn't be here to look at it, so saying that > the universe is special because we can observe it is the same as > saying that our strategies for avoiding the trap aren't perfect > after we just crawled out of the trap together :) But it's > interesting (and important) to keep in mind, nontheless. I love intricate reasoning :-D And yes, the issues should be kept in mind so that we can avoid them in the future. > And it doesn't say we have to fall into the same trap again (all the time) - > just like not every possible universe has to allow life to exist :) Sure :-) > Happy hacking! Thank you! :-) Happy hacking to you, too! Regards, scolobb
