I meant the organisation as a whole--as organisations tend inevitably
to do in dealing with even their primary constituency. I agree that WP
does so much less than most, but the tendency is inevitable. I don't
see how it could have been read as you in particular, or indeed anyone
else in their individual capacities.
As for the success of the course taken, and of the PR advice received,
the events speak for themselves. Of course, it may well have been that
there was no course that could have done better--but at the least a
full background check then would have seemed in order, to avoid the
situation Jimmy describes, when the charges took you all unawares.
On 12/15/07, Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David Goodman writes:
Yes, the board must have the discretion to
choose the appropriate
course, and in this instance it chose wrongly. It takes good
judgement to know how much to release, and the judgment proved not to
be good. The bias towards secrecy would be the apparent reason.
Apart from my disagreement about Goodman's evaluation of our
judgments, I am charmed to have been accused, for the first time in my
life, with a "bias towards secrecy." Anyone familiar with me or my
work would have presumed my bias had been in the opposite direction.
As Kant pointed out, acting against one's inclinations is often an
indicator of moral judgment.
--Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.