On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 2013 6:57 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> My point is that the vote was framed such that if you vote +1 then you 1) >> don't trust people 2) want to be like the soviet union and take away >> people's freedom. It just seems a bit unfair to start a vote that way. >> >> I get that someone might feel like enforcing that list conversations say >> on list seems a bit nanny-ish. But hopefully it doesn't offend people too >> much that they have to follow someone else's rules any time they choose to >> work in a community, frequent a business, visit someone else's home, etc. >> "Taking away my freedom of choice" just doesn't seem like a valid complaint >> in a setting like this.
If you see the first sentence of that paragraph, I am targeting the saying that the new way would "encourage the offline discussion." I didn't say if you vote +1, you didn't trust people. I said, if you vote "+1" because you believe the new way is encouraging the offline discussion and because of this you vote "+1", then you didn't trust people in the community. To me, "encouraging the offline discussion" is completely an invalid reason, as I said in the paragraph. The reason matters. --Sheng >> >> On Feb 7, 2013 6:40 PM, "Sheng Yang" <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Even though I don't feel strongly about this functionality, the way >>> > the vote itself was presented bothers me. Clearly, if you want an >>> > email thread to be treated as a public topic that all responses >>> > automatically stick to, then you're a communist and trying to take >>> > away people's freedom. Never mind that you can still send private >>> > emails to someone. >>> >>> Sorry, I don't get your point. And I am not a communist. >>> >>> --Sheng >>> > >>> > I think there are a lot of valid arguments for and against, and for me >>> > it boils down to the fact that this is an ASF project, and should >>> > stick to what the ASF has set up, irrespective of what other open >>> > source projects or lists do. But it seems like a bit of a cheap shot >>> > to go after the Godwin's law vote.
