“>0< - the main problem we have here is that people for one reason or another do not seem comfortable with making the distinction between the abstract, "What would happen under these circumstances" with the particular fact that you and Haus have recently been in the middle of a debate around these issues.”
Yes, this much is painfully clear. Of course, this isn’t what I am bringing to this thread, but what those people failing to make the distinction are bringing…
“I move that we should agree that this debate would be better had when the next situation emerges in which there are no perceived or actual conflicts of interest that might make the debate untenable.”
I can tentatively agree with this with the qualification that I find it a little sad and a little frustrating that simply because Haus and I were involved in what has been, in part, a catalyst for discussion about PMs that we are unable to discuss potential Policy regarding the real issues. So I guess that you are correct in saying we are better off to wait for the next occurrence: hopefully it won’t involve any of our “regulars,” I guess.
“…see if we can come to a useful understanding about the various options between case-by-case approaches / case-law / policy / board infrastructure.”
Yes! This is more what I’d be aiming for myself: solutions that involve taking the context of particular cases in consideration + precedent set by previous similar occurrences + the general attitude that we’d have as a community + the way the board functions. Let’s “exploit our resources,” eh!
Anyway, I’ll drop this for now as it is causing me more annoyance now than it is anything else (and I don’t like prolonging my frustration!). Cheers all, and sorry Ganesh for getting a little short with you, and Haus, well, you know—we fight like siblings (which hopefully means we can also “make-up” like brothers as well).
~greater than zero~ |
