On Oct 11, 2022, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: > open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings
Not useful when potential objectors are kept in the dark about the whole thing. > and have not used private conversations as public debating points nor for > divisive purposes The public claims of broad support used to put pressure for objectors to give in seem to fit this pattern you deny, if not so much in seeding the divide created by the then-secret proposal, but in bridging it. The very purpose of private conversations was claimed by proponents of the conversation as something to the effect of avoiding objections. As for purporting key decisions as if in the hands of an advisory committee, while the final decisions would rest in the hands of another body whose members would be effectively buying the projects on the cheap... All of that, too, speaks for itself. Anyway, this is all besides the point. Whether or not there are nefarious purposes behind it is besides the point. The key point I raise is that most people would support and accept something desirable offered to them at no charge, but many might not upon finding that there's a very steep price involved in the transaction. There's no evidence whatsoever that the costs have been conveyed along with the dreams to the supposed supporters, so we'd better not take that alleged support for granted. The whole process was structured in a certain way, explicitly for the purpose of sidelining objections. That does not inspire the very trust that would be required to agree to turn over control over our infrastructure. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
