[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>wrote:

> (not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to
> participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint
> (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good
> arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet
> been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored
> fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in "the opposite camp". I
> basically gave up.
>

Yeah, tell me about it.  I've commented a couple times in public and in
private to no avail, since I don't want to talk about what they want to
focus on.  Post a link to a blog, and the thread has 95 replies.  Go
figure.

>
> So I do have to say that I agree with the sentiment that the discussion is
> not very inviting, and is actually discouraging people who want to find a
> solution in the middle to participate...
> ...Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers'
> actually want and/or need...
>
> Lodewijk
>

I agree.

>
> No dia 30 de Setembro de 2011 11:40, Béria Lima <berialima at gmail.com
> >escreveu:
> > *Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the
> > elephant
> > > in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and
> > how.
> > > *
> >
> >
> > You forgot the "*IF*": IF the elephant will be or not implemented.
> >


Wrong thread, but there is no if.


-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan