On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Another way to try say it might be: If you muck with the
volunteer ethos too much, as is being suggested by a few
people on this thread, you are very very likely to destroy
that volunteer ethos entirely.
This response (1) assumes without demonstrating that it is true that there is, generally, a volunteer ethos, and (2) presumes, without showing why, that this purported volunteer ethos would be destroyed by the various half-baked proposals that have been bandied about here.
The half-baked ideas I've seen throw out in this thread seem
to be exemplars in mucking about carelessly, or would be if
taken seriously. (And in case someone wonders, I don't see
any value in this thread as a thought-experiment either.)
I could say the same about every post you've made so far.. If the half-baked proposals are so bad (and I agree that they are half-baked: the way things get fully baked is by deciding to explore them in enough detail to bake them), and you want to shut them down, you should come up with better arguments. I'm not saying that your conclusions are wrong: maybe they are correct. Maybe you even have good reasons for believing them. But you haven't actually argued in support of your conclusions—you've just stated them in a way that suggests that it should be obvious to any reader that they are correct, and that if the reader does not find them correct, the reader, and not the argument, is what's broken.
