[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Kat Walsh]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
>>> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
>>> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
>>> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of time explaining and (to
>>> some extent) defending board consensus. I didn't think it was
>>> especially worthwhile or relevant to talk about anything else, as the
>>> board acts as a corporate body.
>>
>>
>> If you act only in support of a view, and do not voice your concerns,
>> I hardly think it's unfair to draw a conclusion to your opinions from
>> your actions. It then comes across as odd and insincere to later say
>> "actually, I disagreed with what I was doing." You can't claim your
>> views are being misrepresented when it's your actions doing the
>> representing.
>
> That's not actually what I was trying to say. I said that I changed my
> mind -- probably around early autumn, if you want to put a date on it.
> I haven't done much speaking or writing on the issue in the last few
> months. I wouldn't have voted for the resolution if I had thought at
> the time it was a truly bad idea; at least give me credit for that.
>
>> What stopped you from voicing your qualms?
>
> Partly, as I said, wanting to represent the board consensus. Partly
> because things were so very uncivil in the heat of it. I got called
> (among other things) an ugly American, a prude, freedom-hating, and a
> poor representative of my profession. I just didn't feel like
> dignifying any of that with engagement.
>
> And I think, though I don't have the energy to pull up all the emails
> I've sent, that I tried very hard in all my communications to be
> moderate, open-minded, and to err on the side of explanation of what
> we were doing. Which is pretty much my approach to everything!
>
> So I'm not sure it's a case of voicing qualms or not, as just trying
> not to talk about my own personal opinions (up to and including "can't
> we please find something more important to argue about?!"). Oh well.
>
> Anyway, there are surely more interesting things to talk about -- like
> search! Let's talk about search. I am 100% in favor of better commons
> search :)

Sorry to drag this out--there are definitely more interesting things
to talk about. But as someone who basically holds Phoebe's position on
the issue I'd like to say what I am thinking also.

I think, in fact, that I am almost exactly in agreement with Phoebe. I
voted for the resolution because I thought we had reached a consensus
that was compatible with everyone's principles and wasn't going to
compromise anything else that was critically important. And I think we
were wrong. Maybe it was foolish to think it could have been true, but
it seemed like a victory to get even that far--the controversial
content discussion has been the most divisive and difficult in my time
on the board (since 2006, if you're counting).

We are still divided, as a board, on where to go from here; it is a
true conflict. The actual words in the statement are fine--they should
be, after all the effort poured into them. It is the implications that
we didn't properly foresee and that I think we're still not in
agreement on.

Traditionally, the way we as a board have dealt with true conflicts is
not to release a series of resolutions that squeak by with a bare
majority, but to find some path forward that can get broad or even
unanimous support. If we cannot even get the board--a very small
group, with more time to argue issues together and less diversity of
opinion than the wider community--what hope is there to get the
broader community to come to agreement that the action we decide on is
the best decision?

I think it's my responsibility to be open to argument, to have some
things that cannot be compromised, but to be willing to accept a
solution that doesn't violate them even if I think it's not the best
one. And to be willing to delegate the carrying-out of those decisions
to others. Sometimes I have to take a deep breath and realize
something is going completely unlike how I would have chosen to do it,
and that it might still be okay; I have to step back, let everyone do
their own jobs, and be as fair as possible in evaluating how it is
turning out even if it is not what I wanted. And sometimes that means
the most responsible thing for me to do is to shut up so I don't ruin
the chance of a positive outcome by undermining others' efforts in
progress.

So in an ideal universe, I still think it is possible for a solution
to be developed in line with the resolution that doesn't violate the
principles of free access to information that we value.

But in the practical universe, I think it is a poor use of resources
to keep trying along the same path; we have things that will have much
more impact that aren't already poisoned by a bad start. It was a
viable starting position at one point and now I believe that we can't
get anywhere good from it; better to scrap it entirely, perhaps later
to try something completely different. I would still love to see some
way to meet the needs of the people who don't want to be surprised by
what they will find in a search. But I don't think it's going to come
out of the current approach.

So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
part, nor on Phoebe's.

-Kat

-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: kat at wikimedia.org, kat at mindspillage.org
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage