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

[Alec Conroy]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'd ask the Board is this: what do you expect the impact of such
> a resolution (referring again specifically to the image content
> resolution) will be? By restating the ideology that the projects are
> not censored in one resolution, and merely "urging" a minimal standard
> of care in the other, is it not likely that the status quo will reign
> and we'll be in the same position years from now absent some other
> motivating event?

The important point is that it's not the role of the board to change
the status quo of a specific project in dramatic ways-- it's their job
to speak up for what they think the project should be doing.

Non-notable people shouldn't be shown on WM against their will- that
isn't controversial.   There are a lot of details to work out about
when it's reasonable to infer consent and when it's not, but that's a
debate for the leadership of Commons.

So long as a project stays within the law,  doesn't grossly misuse
their resources, and isn't "evil",  it is free to make mistakes.

Alec