[Freedombox-discuss] Introducing the Technical Advisory Committee

[lodewijk andré de la porte]

I like the concept of a "possibility barrier". I'd like to discuss
forumalting it in an exact manner, like the sound or light barrier. Later it
might be used to postulate the probability of success of any project and
when the accuracy is high enough we can build a heuristic process to
eliminate any email's inpossible idea's.

Until then I suggest silent awkward looks across the room. (helping people
understand why what they're trying to do is impossible is a good idea too.)

2011/5/28 Ted Smith <teddks at gmail.com>

> On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 09:38 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 22:50 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 27 May 2011, Ted Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hopefully now the people on the mailing list who stupidly propose
> and
> > > > > stupidly shoot down PET-related freedombox things will shut up,
> since
> > > > > it's clear they have no actual say.
> > > >
> > > > "Stupidly"?  Is it "stupid" because it's a view you disagree with, or
> is
> > > > it stupid for some other STUPID, ad-hominem reason?
> > > >
> > > > //Alif
> > > >
> > >
> > > A lot of (sure, not all, but most) the PET-related ideas are stupid,
> >
> > *I* think most, if not all of the current ideas for the FB are
> > *technologically unworkable* (at this time anyway), but thats a *long*
> way
> > from "stupid".  Sorry Ted, but by declaring everything as "stupid", it is
> > *you* who are arguing from false authority (and with straw arguments no
> > less).  Do you even listen to yourself?
> >
> > > and shooting down ideas because they aren't in keeping with the "vision
> > > of the FreedomBox" is stupid unless you work for the FBF and actually
> > > can state with authority what is and isn't the freedombox.
> >
> > As an "open" project, *everyone* is both encouraged and entitled to put
> > forward their own visions of the FB - that said, the box *is* the
> dominion
> > of the FBF, and their word *is* the last one.  The ideas put forward from
> > "outside" the FBF are *not* "stupid" just because you don't believe they
> > are (a) viable; (b) correct for the FBF's "vision"; (c) any other reason
> > you can state.
> >
> > "Stupid" is an attack term and nothing more. It doesn't add to the
> > discourse, in fact, it just makes *you* look "stupid" for arguing from
> > behind that curtain.
>
> I guess my idea of a productive mailing list excludes posts about
> technologically unworkable ideas from people who will never be able to
> implement them that will never be adopted under the FB aegis. I think
> that that's stupid, and I'm not afraid to say so.
>
> It seems that you're okay with that, and that's okay -- it just means
> you have more free time to read and ponder mailing list messages than I
> do, or have a much lower possibility barrier when faced with possible
> time investments.
>
> But considering how vemently you attacked me for making a flip comment
> about how I hoped unproductive/stupid mailing list traffic would
> decrease on the freedombox list in the presence of an organized group
> advancing the FBF agenda, I think at this point it's more probable that
> you're just pissed off that I called you out for putting too much faith
> in electoral democracy than that you have a strong inclination to defend
> unproductive mailing list postings.
>
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which
> had a name of signature.asc]