[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

[Florence Devouard]

On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels<andreengels at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>>
>> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
>> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
>> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
>>
>
> Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"!
>
>
>> Not implicitly, no. But you were defending actions that in my eyes did
>> just that, namely by deleting material apparently using the criterium
>> "what might Fox object to?" rather than using the criterium "what does
>> not in any way add to our mission of spreading knowledge?"
>>
>
> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a
> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on
> what he was thinking,

Then let him speak by himself

but I'll note again that, to the extent you focus on
> retrospectively criticizing Jimmy and not on what can be done positively to
> improve Commons policy or its implementation, you are missing an
> opportunity. Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>
>
> --Mike

Well, all we are thinking about is precisely the future and the project.
The project was built upon the perception that this project was build by 
and for the regular people. That no one was the boss and deciding for 
the others. That everyone had a say. That everyone was empowered.

The so-called porn images are a detail within the project.
However, the lost perception that the community is in charge of its own 
future (eg, the way it operates, the power structure), is not a detail. 
It will impact our entire future.

Ant