[sldev] Re: SLDev Digest, Vol 21, Issue 25

[Gordon Wendt]

I agree wholeheartedly with the latter part of that, and incidentally
they wouldn't be the first ones as anyone who's been around and
especially those that have been on this list and seen my input on the
whole ESC special treatment debacle knows, however while I am
concerned about them getting the office  hours I'm not yet prepared to
make that jump.  Hopefully a Linden will grace us with their presence
and clarify and I would hope that this is the start of a trend (I'm
sure one you'd probably criticize as being a favortism fest for LL's
"friends") of guests from all groups, even you (I don't agree with
you... at all but I'd be interested if it happened), representing sl
as guest hosts on their topic du jour but I guess that's a topic for
another time.


Note: Prok, your reply (a great example of this...) came in halfway
through this post so this post is a response just to your quoted post
below.


On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Random Unsung
<ravenglassrentals at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gordon, for the 4th time here now: the issue is not a claim that Jacek is
> formally making a "mandatory viewer". That's not possible in theory.
>
> The problem is that in practice, a forked viewer that gets a privileged
> bully pulpit like a Linden office hour to amplify its ideas is one that can
> begin to insinuate certain concepts and principles that the Lindens adapt,
> sometimes under clamor and agitation from "thecommunity" -- the people who
> constitute the fake "public" around the office hours who merely represent
> the technocratically interested parties.
>
> The way to prevent something from becoming mandatory is to speak out loudly
> and clearly when it is only "forked" or "voluntary" or "optional". A viewer
> that has no SEARCH in it, or imposes CAMERA CONTROLS is a viewer that has an
> ideology to it that begins to bleed into other projects and it's important
> to say NO to these things NOW.