[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Kim Bruning]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:46:45AM -0700, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Thanks Kim; I agree there's a lot of room to figure out the best way to do
> this, and problems with possible interpretations or implementations. That's
> part of the thought behind putting this up for another round of discussion
> (albeit in a different manner than the other rounds).

I appreciate the thought. :-)
 
What I think we all want to do is approach the problem from all angles, 
and converge on a working answer. (Or at least converge on "We've done
our best at least")

> As for the power balance issue: this tool is ultimately for the readers. We
> don't have a good way for readers to vote, though. And I am also personally
> sympathetic to the idea that the stakeholders -- i.e. the editing community
> -- should be the ones to vote anyway. We did set a very low suffrage bar for
> this vote (10 edits, in good standing): I think it might be the lowest ever,
> actually. 

I feel that things like the voting population or the suffrage
bar are not so relevant to the outcome of a vote. The questions, counting
method, and interpretation of the numbers tend to have a lot more influence.

> I think one thing that will come out of this, which I'm really
> happy about, is that we will learn a lot more about a broadly consultative
> vote and how to do it well.

You're so enthusiastic about this!  Can we chat online at some point?

In any case, as long as we have another round after this, possibly
things will end up ok in the long term.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

--
"be professional, be polite, have a plan to reach consensus with
everyone you meet"