Re: Static class

On 16 June 2024 10:27:27 BST, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: >I don’t understand why we are comparing this to a jury and/or court case. In many countries, >juries don’t even exist (such as the one I currently reside in) so the only context is US TV shows >for what that even means. Apologies, I'm from the UK, and forgot that systems vary so much. I think it roughly works to replace "jury" with "judge" or "magistrate", or whoever decides legal cases in your jurisdiction. The analogy I was trying to draw is that we should be aiming to make a decision based on the merit of the case, not our personal biases; and we should give previous voters the respect of assuming that they did so as well. > Secondly, RFC’s are not “on trial” and can be presented over and over again without much > change. That's exactly what I'm saying should *not* happen. > To say “go read the history” is a cop out. Saying "I can't be bothered to read the history" is *also* a cop out. It places all the burden on long-term contributors to repeat the same arguments every time someone joins the list and revives an old topic. Why is it up to long-term contributors to defend the previous decision, rather than up to someone new to defend reopening it? > Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve our respect to at least copy and paste > our previous emails instead of sending them on a wild goose chase. I completely reject the characterisation of sending anyone on a wild goose chase. I searched the archive, and found the specific threads, and even summarised the points as I remembered them. But the reasoning given wasn't that it was too much effort to understand the previous discussion; it was that all opinions from 10 years ago were automatically irrelevant, and that is the attitude I am fundamentally opposing. To be fair, this particular topic hasn't come up many times, but I'm taking a hard line because I don't want the next new contributor to say "but you voted on that one twice, so let's revote my favourite one as well". If you think things have changed, that's fine - but be explicit *what* you think has changed, don't just talk in the abstract and make us repeat ourselves. Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]