On 16 June 2024 10:27:27 BST, Rob Landers <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don’t understand why we are comparing this to a jury and/or court case. In many countries,
>juries don’t even exist (such as the one I currently reside in) so the only context is US TV shows
>for what that even means.
Apologies, I'm from the UK, and forgot that systems vary so much. I think it roughly works to
replace "jury" with "judge" or "magistrate", or whoever decides legal
cases in your jurisdiction.
The analogy I was trying to draw is that we should be aiming to make a decision based on the merit
of the case, not our personal biases; and we should give previous voters the respect of assuming
that they did so as well.
> Secondly, RFC’s are not “on trial” and can be presented over and over again without much
> change.
That's exactly what I'm saying should *not* happen.
> To say “go read the history” is a cop out.
Saying "I can't be bothered to read the history" is *also* a cop out. It places all
the burden on long-term contributors to repeat the same arguments every time someone joins the list
and revives an old topic.
Why is it up to long-term contributors to defend the previous decision, rather than up to someone
new to defend reopening it?
> Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve our respect to at least copy and paste
> our previous emails instead of sending them on a wild goose chase.
I completely reject the characterisation of sending anyone on a wild goose chase. I searched the
archive, and found the specific threads, and even summarised the points as I remembered them.
But the reasoning given wasn't that it was too much effort to understand the previous
discussion; it was that all opinions from 10 years ago were automatically irrelevant, and that is
the attitude I am fundamentally opposing.
To be fair, this particular topic hasn't come up many times, but I'm taking a hard line
because I don't want the next new contributor to say "but you voted on that one twice, so
let's revote my favourite one as well".
If you think things have changed, that's fine - but be explicit *what* you think has changed,
don't just talk in the abstract and make us repeat ourselves.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]