On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Erik, if you really want to change the focus of
the debate, suggest to
Sue and the board that they make a commitment: that an image filter
won't be imposed on the projects against strong majority opposition in
the contributing community. Then you can move on to the hard work of
convincing us of its merits, and we can set arguments over authority
and roles aside.
While this seems like a nice idea on the surface, I think it sets a rather
dangerous precedent. Would a majority of a contributing community be able to
set aside the NPOV policy? What about fair use requirements? The requirement
that people be over 18 to obtain private info? Provisions of the privacy
policy?
Board resolutions, to have any legitimacy, need to be enforceable. The
solution to a bad Board resolution isn't to make a statement saying that it
can be ignored if enough people want to. If that's the case, why have a
Board at all? It seems to me that the solution is for the Board to clean up
its own mess (and resolve to not make future ones).
As I posted earlier, the Board went into this knowing that it was putting
forward a divisive, empty gesture. This resolution was an act in bad faith.
MZMcBride
Your examples are not similar to an image filter. No current core
principles are at stake, no major legal threats to the projects, etc.
More importantly, your "board resolutions need to be enforceable"
principle is not at odds with my suggestion: the board can state a
desire for, and an intention to work towards, an image filter while at
the same time directly disclaiming the intention to unilaterally
impose one.
Nathan