=- Joe Evango wrote on Mon 20.Aug'07 at 16:57:10 -0500 -= > But do you have the authority to replace people or restructure the > community if they don't respond to you? Why shouldn't I have? Being part of the public (and everyone else who once in a while barks "borg" adds to this public demand), it's the authority of the public when the powers in charge don't (want to) respond to public requests. Of course it would require those barking to do something about their complaints more than just barking. If it turned out to be hot air, all the better for me: I can safely ignore them, too. (although still I'd prefer a system to control fairness, so not to have clients discriminated without backed up reason, and generally fair games, once you know what fairness for a given game means and what not). What's bad about replacing those "in charge" when they can't or don't want to implement the supposedly demanded fairness? > One always has the right to share ideas but without proper support > they usually will not succeed in implementing them. You can't know before you ask and then try. And asking for support (active or passive) was all I did. > I think people are more confused then upset. But ... about what? I laid down the concept, asked for volunteers among the owners, then permission to go without them but with their infrastructure, or straight opposition. When some busy people didn't react for a very long time, I didn't want to wait forever for an answer to have their _positive_ dis-/approval. Should every action be delayed forever when required responses "hang" forever? There is always some "timeout" to get moving (and kill a process when it blocks access). What's confusing about that? -- © 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.