Re: Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Do I understand your wording correctly as meaning that whatever the
> outcome of the process, we need a good reason not to follow it — and
> that you do not consider the weaknesses I already described as good
> reasons?
>

What weaknesses exactly?  I have reviewed the thread "Proposal for a
democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)",
and specifically your posts to it, and I don't see any substantive
weaknesses pointed out by you.

On May 5th I asked:

So can I assume that, since the conversation went off on some weird
> tangent, that everyone is comfortable with my proposal?


You did not respond.

You subsequently decided to act like a child and refuse to use Google Docs
because you felt I had insulted you in an off-list discussion, is that what
you're referring to?

Please be more specific.  You've said a lot of things, most of which I
found unpersuasive or just plain obstructionist.

Ian.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl