=- James Cameron wrote on Wed 18.Jul'07 at 19:53:37 +1000 -=

> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > > { client, server, community hats }
> > ... but at the same time you reject responsiblity and commitment
> > to pick up or establish an official representative role [...]
> Yes, I reject any responsibility to you to pick up or establish an
> official representative role.

That's not to only me, but all of netrek.
You wear those hats of power, but don't want to be taken responsible
for what "netrek" is, or have somebody do it for you?

Is "netrek" for you a game framework that you just happen to use in
one flavour for yourself (and those who happen to like yours), or a
clearly defined set of rules to mean 1 ("the") game for all (with
likewise clearly defined "mods" like hockey, paradise, ...)?
 (or what else?)

In the former case such a role makes no sense for "the game", but
likewise wouldn't be necessary since "borg" and other name calling
is pointless then, because there wouldn't be such a thing like "the

By now, I guess I know _your_ answer, but that question is
unanswered by the rest of the list of resource holders.
(or in general by the community at large)

> Not sure what you mean by commitment, but I guess you meant "lack
> commitment".

... not just lack, but reject it for this purpose? If it were only
lack, that could be changed, but you deny that change by conviction
on the matter rather than antipathy for my way of bringing it up,
Or is it just because of antipathy?

> Then you go on to define the role:
> > to respond to requests as needed, make judgement calls more
> > explicit and public to establish a "conforming client + server"
> > system (technical and social) to extend your fairness to _all_
> > users independent of their client?
> It would involve quite a lot of work and challenge. The role would
> be sociological and political. Have you anyone available to fill
> this role? The role does not interest me.

Fine, I never claimed that the owners are the only possible.
I even suggested others to be the active part in their place.
I just considered them the 1st choice -- if they wanted such a role
to exist at all (independent of who'd run it) -- to make reaction
times between decisions and resources shorter.

> Maybe you should ask Zach?

I don't mind anyone doing it, as long as there is a big picture
leading it (consistency), publicity and activity (to provide
"fairness" within and across netrek styles).

But the role makes no sense without backup by the owners to support
and realize decisions, even if unpopular at 1st (by perception of
noise, not necessarily by number of people and relevance of reasons).

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.