Andrew Gray wrote:
The basic problem is that when a debate is binary - include or don't include - we can't really compromise with both sides unless we get interestingly creative...
I agree with Andrew that we should try to think beyond the simple binary debate and look for interestingly creative solutions. I suspect actually that in time, with sufficient creative genius, we can come up with a quasi-Pareto-improving solution.
Let me explain what I mean. In any situation where it is impossible to make every person completely happy, we are not at a complete and total loss about how to make things better. Instead, we can look for solutions that make everyone better off than they would be under some alternative.
If we restrict ourselves to binary choice here (INCLUDE or DON'T INCLUDE) then we will have one side or the other fairly miserable.
If we better understand the objections (and I think we are having a problem with this, due to insufficient participation by the objectors in our processes) then we can look for solution that at least help them a bit, while hopefully *also* helping the other side a little bit as well.
--Jimbo