On 16 June 2024 10:27:27 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote:
>I don’t understand why we are comparing this to a jury and/or court case. In
>many countries, juries don’t even exist (such as the one I currently reside
>in) so the only context is US TV shows for what that even means.
Apologies, I'm from the UK, and forgot that systems vary so much. I think it
roughly works to replace "jury" with "judge" or "magistrate", or whoever
decides legal cases in your jurisdiction.
The analogy I was trying to draw is that we should be aiming to make a decision
based on the merit of the case, not our personal biases; and we should give
previous voters the respect of assuming that they did so as well.
> Secondly, RFC’s are not “on trial” and can be presented over and over again
> without much change.
That's exactly what I'm saying should *not* happen.
> To say “go read the history” is a cop out.
Saying "I can't be bothered to read the history" is *also* a cop out. It places
all the burden on long-term contributors to repeat the same arguments every
time someone joins the list and revives an old topic.
Why is it up to long-term contributors to defend the previous decision, rather
than up to someone new to defend reopening it?
> Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve our respect to at
> least copy and paste our previous emails instead of sending them on a wild
> goose chase.
I completely reject the characterisation of sending anyone on a wild goose
chase. I searched the archive, and found the specific threads, and even
summarised the points as I remembered them.
But the reasoning given wasn't that it was too much effort to understand the
previous discussion; it was that all opinions from 10 years ago were
automatically irrelevant, and that is the attitude I am fundamentally opposing.
To be fair, this particular topic hasn't come up many times, but I'm taking a
hard line because I don't want the next new contributor to say "but you voted
on that one twice, so let's revote my favourite one as well".
If you think things have changed, that's fine - but be explicit *what* you
think has changed, don't just talk in the abstract and make us repeat ourselves.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
