[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

illegale — 2006-11-21 23:40:13+0100

A while ago we in Tiaktiv thought that we might be authorizing body that would give licenses.

Yet, if you create such body that is giving licenses, than there is a big concentration of power in one place, which is not good. Now we believe that we work in the same manner as GNU is working. They just develop policies and if you like them, you adopt them.

If you are taking policies that you do not obey to, than every individual has to clearly notice such thing, which gives such organization bad reputation of fakers.

About your comment, the problem is that such principle can kidnap meaning of TOP. Imagine thing where four of us are TOP and in next time somebody threaten us so we have to go non-TOP and adopt policies that are against it. It would ruin the power of such brand which is not a good thing I believe.

[top-politics] Re: Secret votes

Magnus — 2006-11-10 09:27:34+0100

OK, Gordan!
Reality will force us to some adaptations, that’s for sure. And I agree, that as long as the exceptions are clearly defined, they could be accepted at least after a discussion within top- TOP- organization.
I’m definately not after that there will be many exceptions after time, because that will as you foresee, lead to outwatering of the TOP principle giving it no relevance in the end.
So maybe we should have as a rule that all exceptions have to be authorized by TOP-organization in order to be able to still call yourself an TOP-certified organization?
Basically, we should go ahead and form a more strict organization with the goal of signing authorizations for all organizations interested.