On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Máirín Duffy wrote:
Hey Greg!
On 10/09/2009 11:05 AM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
Note that this does *not* mean that we're settling for some watered-down
form of lowest-common-denominator democracy, as some seem to imply;
rather, it is a pluralistic meritocracy, in which we recognize that both
ideas *and actions* can come from all directions, even opposite ones --
and that today's popular idea is not necessarily the only worthwhile
idea. It is critical to understand this pluralism, and to protect it.
I understand that there will be a handful of cases that are truly
either/or -- i.e. there can be either one default spin or many default
spins, and we must choose one or the other. That's fine. Let's make
decisions where we must make them -- but otherwise, let everyone pursue
their passions as far as their abilites will carry them, and let us do
our best to recognize those efforts wherever they bear fruit.
I agree with this. However, I'm not sure anyone here wouldn't.
Just making sure. :)
There's a big difference between asking "how do we decide how to best
present ourselves to audience X" and "how do we decide who we are". I'm
all for driving clarity in the first case -- but I'm very nervous about
people pushing for an answer in the second case.
--g
--
Computer Science professors should be teaching open source.
Help make it happen. Visit http://teachingopensource.org.
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
