> That middle ground has nothing to do with respect though, which gets back to my point.
I said "complicated". You took that to mean a continuum, but that's not the case. There is more than one dimension here.
> By this logic, you can virtually never question someone's choice because you effectively never know everything that goes into someone else's choice.
You were talking criticism. Here you have shifted ground to questioning. Which is still a little entitled, honestly. You could ask questions, though.
Also, your parallel to government decisions is ridiculous. Government is of, by, and for the people. People have a right to know. Ward Cunningham, on the other hand, is of, by, and for Ward Cunningham. You have no right to get up in his business.
> What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel well informed is to become well informed so that you can either defend your position or understand the decision.
Yes, and I for one wish you had done that here instead of pitching a fit.
But ultimately, Ward doesn't owe us an explanation. If he chooses to inform us, that's great. But if not, the respectful thing to do is to, absent evidence to the contrary, assume he knows what he's doing.
> I said "complicated". You took that to mean a continuum, but that's not the case. There is more than one dimension here.
It feels like you're trying really hard to avoid addressing the point directly. It's really not as complex as you're making it out to be. I literally posed a yes or no question about the specific example of Ward Cunningham and somehow it's now a multi-dimensional issue that you've been unable to answer?
I think your answer is "no" but for some reason you're unwilling to just say so, which is why you're bringing in other dimensions that are unrelated to respect in order to try to make the question seem difficult. If you think the commenters should shut up about Cunningham's actions because you think their complaints come from a place of ignorance or entitlement, that might be reasonable, but it's got nothing to do with respect.
> You were talking criticism. Here you have shifted ground to questioning. Which is still a little entitled, honestly. You could ask questions, though.
You're trying to nitpick semantics. To question someone's decision is to criticize it.
> Also, your parallel to government decisions is ridiculous. Government is of, by, and for the people. People have a right to know. Ward Cunningham, on the other hand, is of, by, and for Ward Cunningham. You have no right to get up in his business.
The government example was provided to illustrate why this mindset is fundamentally wrong, not to equate government actions and Cunningham's actions. I could have provided equivalent examples involving business, or friends, or strangers. But it doesn't matter because you're nitpicking the example instead of addressing the unhealthiness of the attitude.
> Yes, and I for one wish you had done that here instead of pitching a fit.
Where do you imagine I pitched a fit? Is criticism something you just fundamentally don't agree with? My comments here have been polite and, yes, respectful.
> But ultimately, Ward doesn't owe us an explanation. If he chooses to inform us, that's great. But if not, the respectful thing to do is to, absent evidence to the contrary, assume he knows what he's doing.
I never claimed he did and repeatedly stated that he didn't owe me anything. I think I made it extremely clear that I was criticizing the comments/attitude linking respect and silence, and not Cunningham's actions. (I'm not sure why you're equating whether he owes us something with whether he knows what he's doing, though. These are unrelated.)
Your yes or no question contains a framing I reject. I will not answer it as written. If you would like to ask an actual question where you intend to learn something, I'm glad to take a swing at that. I will not participate, though, in your rhetorical attempt to prove a point I believe wrong.
> You're trying to nitpick semantics. To question someone's decision is to criticize it.
No, criticizing is saying the decision is bad for given reasons. Questioning it often implies the decision is bad, but needn't. Asking questions is a way of learning more about the decision. For a given level of knowledge, these demonstrate different levels of respect.
> it doesn't matter because you're nitpicking the example instead of addressing the unhealthiness of the attitude.
Some possible attitudes are unhealthy. But quite a lot of them demonstrate healthy humility and respect. Your continued insistence on collapsing all possible attitudes that result in silence into one attitude is the reason we are not getting anywhere.
> Where do you imagine I pitched a fit?
Right here. Your whole discussion here is you raising a ruckus because you imagine people must hold an a particular attitude you don't like. They don't, but you are unwilling to listen.
> I never claimed he did and repeatedly stated that he didn't owe me anything. I think I made it extremely clear that I was criticizing the comments/attitude linking respect and silence, and not Cunningham's actions.
Either you believe you are entitled to opine vigorously upon decisions you don't yet understand, or you believe the person you are criticizing is required to explain their decision to your satisfaction. Otherwise you would be able to see that not saying anything is a respectful way to deal with a decision made by someone who has more data than you and has spent longer thinking about it.
So yes, you have claimed he doesn't owe you anything. But you still act like he does.
I said "complicated". You took that to mean a continuum, but that's not the case. There is more than one dimension here.
> By this logic, you can virtually never question someone's choice because you effectively never know everything that goes into someone else's choice.
You were talking criticism. Here you have shifted ground to questioning. Which is still a little entitled, honestly. You could ask questions, though.
Also, your parallel to government decisions is ridiculous. Government is of, by, and for the people. People have a right to know. Ward Cunningham, on the other hand, is of, by, and for Ward Cunningham. You have no right to get up in his business.
> What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel well informed is to become well informed so that you can either defend your position or understand the decision.
Yes, and I for one wish you had done that here instead of pitching a fit.
But ultimately, Ward doesn't owe us an explanation. If he chooses to inform us, that's great. But if not, the respectful thing to do is to, absent evidence to the contrary, assume he knows what he's doing.