On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:05:45PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
On 17 May 2017, at 16:49, Job Snijders <job@ntt.net> wrote: Jim correctly pointed out that it is a strawman to suggest or even merely imply that any other method will be a bureaucratic nightmare driven by "amateur lawyers".
I didn’t say that at all Job. At least I thought I didn’t say that. If anything, a discussion of other methods can all too easily become the start of a slippery slope which ends in a bureaucratic nightmare. We have to be careful to avoid that. Or waste our time shed-painting and rat-holing.
OK. I took your phrasing: "It's possible to have fine things like transparency (and openness and accountability and... a pony) with minimal amounts of process. These are not mutually exclusive. Too many people either seem to have forgotten that or believe it can't be done." as a polite version of pointing out a fallacy. :-) Kind regards, Job