[MD] A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS "THE POINT"

[ian glendinning]

DMB, Arlo, Platt, Mark, et al

DMB said
dmb says:
The issue is always competence, right?

Yes DMB I'd agree with you.

But the only competence I (and Arlo ?) was talking here is editorial
competence. Because if we get into MoQ competence we are into the
difficulty you (and I, and Platt, and Mark, and Arlo, and ...) raised,
of competence judged by whose standards, etc ... a slippery slope. (So
I agree with Platt too, again, if anyone is keeping score.)

Editorial competence is easy ... who do we trust to do balanced
editing. A very simple piece of democracy. And very dynamic too, if
you don't make the mistake of building any "institutions" around that
core of democratic freedom.

I'm talking about defining freedom by its limits, in order to nurture
freedom, not to cramp it.
Ian

(You mail is long DMB, and I see Arlo has already responded to parts
... I'll need to come back when i have a free hour.)

Regards
Ian
On 10/11/06, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Quoting craigerb at comcast.net:
>
> > [david buchanan]
> > > "group consensus"...pretends all voices have equal merit.
> >
> > This is a fallacy based on a mistaken view of consensus as only either a
> > concatenation of individual views or a view arrived at by something like majority
> > vote.  Instead, consensus can be formed by deliberation led by the most
> > knowledgeable, with the consideration of any view proportional to its perceived
> > quality.
>
> Most knowledgeable by what measure? Perceived by whom?
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>