Well, again just for perspective:
Bruce attempts to explain and "defend" the current system. When we are discussing failures, or flaws in the current system, this can become counterproductive.
Attaching personal blame is likewise counterproductive. What needs to be addressed is the structure of the system.
I found it highly ironic that 7im in this thread found it beneficial to "back-channel" his suggestion for reform in closed PM, rather than share it with those who are affected by the result here in the forum.
Isn't that exactly what caused the problem.
Obviously, there was some conversation, some discussion over changing the requirement for BA over the last two years.
However, the first donors hear of it is when the decision is already made and set to be implemented in two months.
Now, say whatever 7im suggests is implemented, and say some group of folders is adversely affected.
Will it come as any surprise that they will be offended by being purposely blocked from not only participating, but even following the decision making process?
The structure of the system is so flawed that any result is suspect before arrival.
Now, I have said this many times. The great irony is that I have said it 10x times more than is reflected in the forum record. Some excellent threads, with detailed and exhaustive analysis of QRB, BA points, and general communication(by other donors) simply do not exist. These threads were systematically re-categorized as "anything goes" and were then deleted.
I have always found this purging of history greatly disturbing. It distorts the record of donor requests and complaints. It also showed a great disdain and condescension toward donors who invested considerable amounts of time looking at point details and trying to make constructive suggestions on how to reform the system.
To what extent Bruce is responsible for this sanitation of FF history, I can't say.
However, I can say it was effective in purging from the institutional memory these lengthy and detailed debates.
Peace? At what cost?
I know I don't have the energy to reconstruct the suggestions,the charts detailing point fits, the comments from donors who have left, after making exactly the statements that are being made in this thread:
"I invested in FOLDING based on the current information"
"Now I find that I "should have known" that "beta,or advanced, or experimental" means that changes can occur without notice."
Really?
This is not how any business is run. Businesses get sued on a regular basis for misleading their investors(even when this is merely a failure to update). Good intentions are not an acceptable excuse and neither are boiler-plate warnings.
Epic is being sued for misleading investors about the launch of B4. Of course they intended on shipping on time, Of course, they intended to ship a relatively bug free product. However, they had to know there were problems some time between starting the project 2 years ago and launch. Their failure to update investors leaves them liable to civil suit.