Samuel Henderson wrote:
Thank you for this reassurance. I am astonished that
the Board would not
anticipate this (widespread) interpretation of events, or recognize that
this change would be regarded by many as a power grab by insiders.
Again, for my part, the presentation of this as if it were not removing
power from the editing community (which it certainly is) is far more
troubling than the actual removal of power (which may indeed be a wise
move). I remain troubled.
A general observation, if I may:
The assumption of good faith becomes increasingly difficult to sustain as
the power relations become less symmetric. (The limiting case of this would
be assuming good faith in national leaders, which the events of the past
decade have shown to be extraordinarily unwise.) At the moment the
difference in power between individual editors and Board members is
enormous, and growing. Much of this is for eminently sound legal and
strategic reasons, but the members of the Board should understand that this
means that they will need to account scrupulously for their actions if they
expect to be regarded as good-faith actors. To expect otherwise is not
only unrealistic, but frankly underestimates the intelligence of the editing
community.
Cheers,
Sam
Right, but which "power" are we exactly talking about ?
Ant