This whole discussion reminds me of politics--both sides have valid points, but they seem to be derived from irreconcilable logic. That is to say, people are justifying underlying opinions with logic, rather than using logic to build cohesive opinions. Without a common base in logic, reconciliation is quite difficult.
To provide a relevant example, consider the debate over computerized trading on Wall Street.
Large firms with millions of dollars invested in computerized trading will argue that "computer systems offer many more advantages than disadvantages. The explosion of trading makes it easier and cheaper for individual investors to buy and sell stocks."
Smaller investors who are hurt by the rise of computer-controlled stock trading counter that "the rise of the machine on Wall Street shows individual investors are even more outgunned than before due to factors many will never see or perhaps understand"
Both justifications are logical in nature, but are ultimately motivated by underlying self-benefit. Because of this, it's almost impossible for both sides to find 'common ground.'
To apply these philosophical concepts to the debate at hand, here are two logical points of view that contradict each other:
Many long-time members have invested a commendable amount of time and money in the XIM project, and giving them early access to the XIM3 would be a suitable gesture of thanks from OBsIV.
However, "preferential treatment" divides the community and could possibly alienate new customers.
Keep in mind, though, that this may not even be an issue. If the first batch is big enough to accomodate demands from both new and old alike, this whole debate is moot
