Conversation
Replying to
If you mean that seriously, that begins with tinkering with ideas. Like how you once refactored MVP as EDP for me
2
Replying to
1
Replying to
cooking ~ tinkering, roughly. Intent is fine. it's explicitly *moral* intent I think is unnecessary and a drag
1
Replying to
1
Replying to
Things like explicit moral manifesto a la Ello. Otherwise, term is vacuous. There are lived values in all behavior.
2
Replying to
oh, yeah. In that case I just invoke Gall's law (I'm sure you're familiar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gall )—central planning no-no.
1
Replying to
we converge :). Explicit moral intents imo always lead to authoritarian, overspecified plans.
3
1
Replying to
1
Replying to
I prefer "rough consensus and running code" (IETF) as basic statement.
2
Replying to
Other forms seem to lead to kill-me-now irony of centralized, authoritarian evangalism of decentralized, pluralistic models
Replying to
There's a funny interplay between what an individual can(should) accomplish vs a group.
Replying to
I am resolute in my support of the idea of conceptual integrity, which can only occur when one person (sometimes two) is in charge.
1
1
Replying to
But the idea is to gel that conceptual structure in a form which is consistent and communicable and then tender it as a proposal.
1
Replying to
after that the group (bazaar?) can push and pull on it all they like, but not before, because that's design by committee.
1
Replying to
once you yourself mint the germ of the idea, then others can take it and run with it, and they will be moderated by everybody else.
1

