[Osmf-talk] Will it ever end?

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Sat Dec 6 15:32:46 UTC 2014


On 12/06/2014 03:54 PM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:
> Given all the shit that is now going on on this list, I'm more and more regretting that I just renewed my membership...

That is a sentiment that is often shared and echoed.

However, let us not forget that very often it is not really "shit that
is happening on this list" but instead "shit that has happened in real
life in the past", and shit that has often been swept under the rug in
the name of trying to achieve harmony, looking forward, emphasizing the
common goal, etc.etc.etc.

There's a balance to be struck. We don't want to go over the old shit
time and time again. But simply ignoring it won't work either; it's just
like in any personal relationship where you will certainly not expect
perfection but if you swallow too much without actually discussing it
then there comes a point where you can't go onand you'll end up sitting
on a relationship counsellor's sofa in the best case, or just break up.

Most calls for harmony on this list have really suggested a good way
forward - they have usually been limited to "now be quiet already", but
I think we have been quiet about too many things for too long and that's
precisely what creates acrimonious discussions later.

There must be a civilized way to discuss shortcomings - even if they are
shortcomings of an individual. There must be ways to say: I do not think
that person X should be entrusted with Y because of Z, and there must be
ways for this to happen in a factual environment.

If someone has said one thing a year ago and now writes a manifesto in
which he says another thing, it must be ok - it must even be desirable -
for this to be pointed out and discussed, without generating a huge
personal conflict in which one group shuffles their "+1"es behind one
combatant and the other group theirs behind their champion. It must be
ok to, if a person asks to be elected, point out reasons why that person
might not be suitable, or another person might be more suitable. It must
be ok to argue for and against a resolution that has been tabled, and
occasionally it might be required to remind voters of things that have
been said and done in the past if they are perceived to have a bearing
on today's decisions. That's standard political discourse.

I'm looking forward to suggestions. The simplistic "keep quiet already"
has been proven to be unhealthy.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list