On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I >>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored >>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was >>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to >>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was >>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the >>> board acts as a corporate body. >> >> >> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns, >> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from >> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say >> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your >> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the >> representing. > > That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my > mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it. > I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few > months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at > the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that. > >> What stopped you from voicing your qualms? > > Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly > because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called > (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a > poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like > dignifying any of that with engagement. > > And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails > I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be > moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what > we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything! > > So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying > not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including "can't > we please find something more important to argue about?!"). Oh well. > > Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like > search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons > search :)
Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also. I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time on the board (since 2006, if you're counting). We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in agreement on. Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is the best decision? I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it, and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in progress. So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the principles of free access to information that we value. But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later to try something completely different. I would still love to see some way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come out of the current approach. So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my part, nor on Phoebe's. -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: [email protected], [email protected] (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
