G'day Rado,

I've reviewed your post quoted in full below, and I agree with what you
said.  Where you have asked a question of the form "scenario 1 or
scenario 2" my answer is "yes."  I expect this closes your issue with my
level of involvement?

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 05:26:52PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> =- 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
> game".
> 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,
> right?
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> netrek-dev mailing list
> netrek-dev at us.netrek.org
> http://mailman.us.netrek.org/mailman/listinfo/netrek-dev

James Cameron    mailto:quozl at us.netrek.org     http://quozl.netrek.org/