The more specific our asks the better the chances of success.
And yes, we can be a socially responsible organisation promoting inclusion
without policy positions on these things.
Dimi
2015-07-27 15:47 GMT+02:00 Owen Blacker <owen(a)openrightsgroup.org>rg>:
Much as my European tree-hugging-hippie socialist
politics would love that
everyone support all the things James mentioned in the first mail in this
thread, I'm with Stéphane and Gervaise on this.
There's nothing to stop the Foundation having staffing policies on those
things or acting towards those aims (in ways that the trustees feel
appropriate, of course) — such as choosing a more-expensive but
more-environmentally-conscious hosting provider, perhaps — but, much though
it weren't the case, I'm sure there are many people in this movement who
think that universal preventative healthcare is a means of abrogating
personal responsibility or of spreading vaccine-based autism cooties or
something.
While **I** may think that the people who believe those things are wrong
and stupid, I don't think **the Foundation** should be telling them that.
I'm afraid I'm unaware of Harald Bischoff and how he might or might not
have defrauded anyone, so I don't (yet) have an opinion on that.
Owen
On Mon, 27 Jul 2015 at 14:20 Gervase Markham <gerv(a)mozilla.org> wrote:
Delurking momentarily, might I say that in a
Mozilla context we have
found this:
On 26/07/15 21:11, James Salsman wrote:
I am of the often non-unanimous opinions that the
Foundation should, in
complete yet indirect accordance with its mission, take at least pro
forma and ideally active stances in favor of social issues such as free
public education through college, universal preventative health care,
income equality, gender wage equity, and greenhouse gas mitigation.
to be a spectacularly bad idea.
People support <ORGANIZATION> because they agree on the explicit goals
of <ORGANIZATION>. There is no guarantee whatsoever that they will agree
on other goals, and to make <ORGANIZATION> support them institutionally
risks alienating volunteers and supporters for negligible gains.
You may think it's obvious that anyone who supports the goals of
<ORGANIZATION> must also support these other "obviously good" things
("I
support them! So therefore every right-thinking person does!"), but I
would say that people are more complex than you think, and (at the very
least) you need to admit that people can be inconsistent, and that
should be OK.
Gerv
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors