[Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/3/4 Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org>:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>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.