On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:57:32PM -0800, John Plocher wrote: > Which was to seed an editorial committee with the very people from the > CGs and > Projects that are A) doing the editorial work today, and B) who would > form the CC > list of this proposed community group.
Actually, the decision was to create a committee of 5, 2 members from the OGB and 3 not, all of them to be appointed by Mr. Teer in his role as OGB chairman. If he wants to appoint people from that list, he may do so. If he wants to appoint himself, Glynn, and 3 space aliens he met at a bar, he may do that too. If the OGB doesn't like the committee he picks or the way it does its job, the board can disband it and reverse its decisions. > Declaring that you would never trust any CG to make decisions that > impact the > community website content is a telling statement - if you don't trust > *me* with > the responsibility, why should I in turn trust *you* or the OGB? Without > mutual understanding and trust, a community or society can't exist. Trust is built from accountability and a track record of good decisions. The approach we have chosen is a win on an accountability basis and a wash on track record. If you don't like such a vague argument, think about an example: the Foo CG puts something on its own pages that another Member (not a CC to Foo) feels is harmful to his interests, stupid, wrong, or just plain obnoxious. If he brought the dispute to the OGB, under what circumstances might the OGB reasonably take action? Unless the material were unlawfully defamatory or factually wrong in a manner that clearly claimed to be speaking for some other CG or the Community as a whole, I cannot imagine the OGB doing anything at all. The Foo CG has editorial control of its own site. Now, if we then say that the Foo CG also has editorial control of the *shared* site, would that same response be reasonable? I don't think so: the Foo CG would now be speaking to the world not on its own behalf but on the Community's. We all have an interest in making sure that message is accurate, honest, and in line with our goals and values, which may differ substantially from the Foo CG's. If the OGB later decides that the committee's or its own track record is sufficiently worse than the Website CG's to justify the loss of accountability, it's free to make a change. If the Members want a constitutional amendment taking this out of the OGB's hands, we're free to ratify one. In the meantime, we've made one of those leadership decisions about the absence of which you were expressing disappointment yesterday: this is the structure we've chosen, and this is why we've chosen it. If you disagree, I'm sorry to hear that. You can ask the board to reconsider, but I've read all the arguments here and I remain satisfied with my votes. Other board members may, of course, feel differently. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
