On 2024-02-15 01:50, Roman Perepelitsa wrote:
> In any debate between tradition and helpfulness, ensure your
> counterpart agrees with this perspective. Should they present
> arguments they consider essential for necessity and consistency, and
> you categorize them merely as "tradition," dialogue ceases. From their
> standpoint, your stance appears at best inconsistent, or at worst,
> vague, and you fail to recognize their points even when clearly
> outlined.
Sure.  Nobody wins a debate like that automatically.  In this case I 
agree with yourself and Mark, and I'm just saying why.  If my arguments 
(or yours or Mark's) fail to persuade then they go nowhere.  As for me, 
I'm wrong more often than I'm right.  Like that last thing -- I got my 
brain twisted into a pretzel and it took Mark to straighten me out 
privately.  (I was actually going to apologize to the list but didn't 
want to waste even more keystrokes.)
>
> For anything to happen, somebody has to do the work. There is no point
> in voting if the vote has no consequences: it's not an obligation for
> anybody to do the work, nor does any work require an approval from
> voters.
Yeah, it's the ultimate worker's paradise -- if someone thinks something 
is worth doing it might just get done.  Still, when a default could be 
considered arbitrary, one might inquire of the masses which they'd 
prefer.  And I think you and Mark are correct on that point.
> Compare what Bart has done to my posting an opinion on this thread.
> One is work, and thus has impact, the other isn't and remains
> inconsequential.
Unless the devs take your point, and implement it.  Talk precedes work 
and good talk makes for good work.