Re: Financial allocation poll stage 3

Florent Daigniere <[email protected]> Sat, 06 Aug 2016 15:43:56 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:16 -0500, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide <[email protected]
> e>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Ian writes:
> > > 
> > > Please be more specific.  You've said a lot of things, most of
> > > which I
> > > found unpersuasive or just plain obstructionist.
> > 
> > This is roughly how you reacted to what I said. Did you assume good
> > faith?
> > 
> 
> You ignored my request to explain which criticisms of the process
> you're
> referring to and instead are attempting to deflect it into some kind
> of
> meta-discussion, in which I have little interest.
> 

I think I've stayed silent on this for too long now... So here are the
criticisms about the process:
1) the outcome of the process is non-binding
2) the perimeter of the process isn't well defined: your first email
talks about a "Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently
allocate resources", the latest is about "Financial allocation". I've
missed the step where we've concluded that the resources are all
financial.
3) in a democracy there are rules on who gets to vote (who qualifies
for citizenship)... As my other thread made clear, here it hasn't been
defined/thought through... I thought we knew better than that, having
worked on a project where Sybil is always a concern

Florent

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 473 B)