On 4/20/06, John Tex johntexster@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the importance of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy. I guess maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.
This is uncalled for.
Firstly Brad said that there does need to be a healthy debate about precisely this.
Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while we discuss a problem with a third party who has contacted us with a serious complaint. If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should be.
I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards Danny's office actions like moths to a flame. No wonder he doesn't want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones. This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just isn't enough. The rules are not an end in themselves. We must recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do that. All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are immaterial. The work must be done.