On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Participation there would be predicated on a shared > understanding of our values, goals and modus operandi.
This standard does run the risk of becoming insular and self-reinforcing. You have to be very careful that the takeaway message is not "You are allowed in the debate, as long as you're on our side of the debate." Shared-values can't shut out debate. That said, I understand the desire to be able to say "this is the way it is, it's settled, and we're not talking about it any more". So if you disagree vehemently with the way it is, but accept that the door is closed for discussion, then you should still be able to participate. As a partial aside, this sort of standard would probably require a centralized location (if such a thing doesn't exist already), which lays out principles which are no longer up for debate (at least in the context if the distilled list), and perhaps a pointer to other places where such a debate should go. Finally, and only a little cynically: any consideration to what the "uninvitation" process would look like? ;) -- Jeremy Nickurak -= Email/XMPP: -= jer...@nickurak.ca =- -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
