[HCoop-Discuss] Proportional Representation?

[Michael Potter]

On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 02:28 -0800, Franklin Gordon Bynum wrote:

> Michael, I just don't think many people share your criticisms. They are
>  appreciated, but ultimately unpersuasive.

It's difficult to tell what people think when they don't speak up. I'm
sure you aren't persuaded, from other posts you've made, it's clear
you're a 'board loyalist' and firmly on the side of the establishment. 

> I share many of Nathan's feelings.  I can't possibly understand how the
>  Sainte-Laguë and Borda methods would be implemented here.  Dividing
>  into factions would be utterly ridiculous.  The "technical" and the
>  "non-technical" users will each have representation?  This is
>  counterproductive, to say the least.

It's not so much the details as the point of creating a form of
proportional representation. I'm talking more about acknowledging real
divisions, like allowing people to opt-out of AFS if using 'fs'
irritates them, for example. Another natural division is resource usage,
including how much hand-holding a person will need based on their
technical knowledge. I personally need very little and don't wish to pay
for help that will, inevitably, have to hold people's hands. 

> We would not be able to function as well as we do today if we were
>  bridled with byzantine formulas that reflected contrived divisions.  

Again, these are not contrived divisions, and denying their existence
will lead to problems later. 

> More than that, again, Hcoop is not a trust.  The decisions are largely
>  not made in advance, because they cannot be with a technology service
>  provider.  Moreover, inability to make certain kinds of binding
>  decisions in advance is to a certain extent part of the corporate form
>  itself, as well.

On the contrary, I think the road map has been planned in advance and
hasn't budged an inch. 

Michael Potter