2009/3/4 Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>rg>:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Do we really want to only listen to the opinions
of those people
actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
way, they don't really care in the first place, do they?
It's a matter of priorities. If a decision is made that I don't agree
with I have to weigh up how bad it is that this bad decision has been
made, how much harm me making a fuss will cause and how likely it is
that me making a fuss will make any difference. (This varies depending
on your definition of "fuss", obviously.) I think it this situation
making a fuss is very unlikely to make any difference once a decision
is made, and the pointless drama will detract from people improving
the projects, so I am unlikely to make a fuss as long as I am
confident the decision is a legal one.
I imagine
most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to
accept it if the majority
disagree with them.
Accept what, that the majority disagrees with them? If that's what you
mean, yeah, most Wikimedians are.
Accept that they've lost the argument and move on.
(This is assuming only options actually legal
under the license are considered.)
I don't think that caveat has been met, though I'd present a higher one
either. Only ethical options should be considered. Mere legality isn't
sufficient.
How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective
concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it.