With respect to the Maintainers

[Jojon]

For what it's worth, I don't really see that anybody has truly expressed any mistrust in any one of you - perhaps a slight disappointment. The issue is not the current people, but the building of any structure that leaves an opening for future abusers.

Things go wrong when there are people involved and it would be a high and mighty presumption of us, to believe we stand above the sort of things that have happened in so many places, so many times before -- actually, looking at this very discussion: QED. There is a little fascist in all of us, waiting to be discovered -- I've seen many nicest-person-in-the-world turn nasty when they get a little power and come across somebody they disagree with. Everything done with the best of intentions of course.

Really, the only rule I find absolute, is that anybody who WANTS power over others must NOT have it. Heek, if we could just pop off to a certain hidden desolate planet now and then and speak guild matters with the guy in the shed, that might actually have been the best option. :P

[Kato]

The issue is not the current people, but the building of any structure that leaves an opening for future abusers.

You don't think we take that into account? That's the absolute FIRST thing I take into account when creating structure. We know what we're doing. We know that there may be potential loopholes, and we try to close them. I know personally that wording must be concrete and firm--I write every structure document I touch as if it were the Constitution, because I know it has a potential to be interpreted and abused in the future.

...just chiming in here.

-Kato

[Nek'rahm]

I think I'm starting to understand what's being said here :S

@Kato: It's a good habit to get into, isn't it?

[BAD]

Ok lets not let fears blur the facts of the situation.

Most Writers are ok with how things are going. There is a small amount of people who are not happy with it. That is gonna happen no matter how great the agreements and set ups will be.

Let's not allow the few to hurt the chances of all this to work out in a positive way. If it does go wrong they can always say they told us so.

[Nynaveve]

*clap clap clap*

Bravo, and well written! I love it! Thank you Trylon. What a way to put it into words. I truly believe we can work this out.

Perhaps we are arguing and fighting well into the night because we have neglected to see each other's needs and motivations....? Maybe we should discuss those. What each needs from the partnership, and how to get there. Instead of eating the pie we have, can we make it larger and create more value for everyone? This way we get what we need and want and everyone is satisfied.

[Nek'rahm]

I finally understand XD

*removes Dunce cap*

[teedyo]

@Jojon: Yeah, that!

@Kato; Lofty and possibly unattainable goals.

We, the naysayers, have seen similar situations fail miserably both inside and outside this community. What we're really saying is: BOTH eyes open people; both eyes open. Hopefully most issues can be identified before the proposal is finalized and hopefully; it can remain fluid enough that any oversights that are identified can be rectified before they result in any serious damage.

PS@Kato: You must really hate RFCs.... "When in this scope; green MUST be green except when it's not. Then it SHOULD be red but CAN, in some cases, be violet.

[Chacal]

Thank you, Trylon, thank you guys.
This is precisely what I have been trying to say all along, only I'm clumsy with this strange English language.

@teedyo: ROFL!
@Nek'rahm: we love you. Please never go away.

[GPNMilano]

I write every structure document I touch as if it were the Constitution, because I know it has a potential to be interpreted and abused in the future.

See, here's what I love about the Constitution though. Its not ironclad. Its structured yes, but its also open to change. Which is what the Founding Fathers wanted. They knew people would take it as "the final word" so they left it open to be changed, amended, and altered if the time ever arose that it needed to be. Because when something isn't open to change, it causes friction with those that have differing view points with it. Which is why something that is structured, but open to change, is so much better. Because then, those with differing view points can say "Hey, this is all well and good but...can't we have it this way instead..." and rather than someone say "No, this is the way it is, and thats final." the other person can say "Well, let's see if we can come to a solution thats good for everyone." And then change said document to suit the needs and views of everyone.

Chloe

[Jojon]

Possibility to change words written on a paper, is one of the dangers, mind. :9 Will the original authors of constitution like what later good-intentioned generations does to it and who gets to amend it anyway? Fortunately "the powers that be" has had the good judgement to put the proposal out for public review and didn't just handle everything behind closed doors, in which case any fear would have been proven and hopefully things wil stay that way.
I could mention that government around here (Sweden), recently sneaked a bill through parliament, that allows authorities to monitor the citizenty's email. A first step always makes the next one a little bit easier. Naturally the usual "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" was bandied about, when news seeped out.

Somehow my attempt to defuse the feeling of personal attacks, that some people were having, became a questioning of said people's judgement.. well I apologise - there is nothing one can write that won't offend somebody, including "bunnies are cute".

...and to show how reading-more-into-words-than-written, goes both ways: yes, maybe we few subversives are trying to disrupt the good constructive cosy huggie team feeling, that all the goodies are working hard for here and maybe questioning the wisdom of going to war on a whim, is the mark of traitor, who should go home to communist Russia.

:P

(Ok, get offended if you absolutely must.)