[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[phoebe ayers]

Hi David,

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
>>> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
>
>> Just for the record, not sure where you got "voted twice"... There's
>> been one vote on each resolution.
>
>
> The first was the vote on the resolution:
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
>
> The second was to send a letter affirming the board still considered
> the resolution a good idea:
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/253393#253393
>
> "We are not going to revisit the resolution from May, for the moment:
> we let that resolution stand unchanged."

That's actually explicitly not a vote -- as in, we agreed not to
re-vote at the October meeting. We did agree to postponing
development, however, as I noted above; and a re-vote is likely on the
table for the spring.

> You were also the chair of the Controversial Content Working Group
> that *wrote* the resolution.

That is true. And I supported the resolution we wrote, felt that we
did good work to try to come to a consensus between pretty widely
divergent points of view, and proposed the resolution to the other
trustees.

There were plenty of reservations at the time, from me and others;
hence all the language about principles. However, we thought what we
proposed could work.

After publishing that resolution, we had the referendum and (even
more) thousands of pages of discussion, and after all that I am
convinced by the arguments that the image hiding feature specifically
is not an especially appropriate or useful thing to do. Surely that is
not a terrible or outlandish conclusion to reach; one might argue for
the benefit in keeping an open mind. And if I am not mistaken, we are
now closer to being in agreement on the issue, which does make one
wonder why you're hassling me over it.

I'll note that still, there are plenty of good arguments on both
sides, and I don't think all the trustees are in agreement about how
to proceed; as this thread shows, there is still plenty of interest on
both sides as well.

I took on chairing the controversial content group because I wanted to
help the board find consensus on a tough issue, not because I wanted
CC to become the defining issue of my term. If I thought at the
beginning that is what would happen, frankly I wouldn't have
volunteered to do it.


>> And it was not raised as an electoral issue. I think that's a little
>> unfair to people (including myself) who are trying to do their best in
>> a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
>
>
> I raised it as one, here.
>
> If you do not support the image filter, you have given *no* sign that
> I have seen of not supporting it before your statement for this
> selection of a board member by the chapters.

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.

I have all along personally thought that both sides of the issues had
merit but that there were strong principles we needed to adhere to,
which is a thread that shows up in the resolution.

> You appeared (from your actions) to support it before, you claim not
> to support it now. I believe it is relevant to note this.

Sure. If there's a place to note what one thinks about something, why
not a candidacy statement? And I will note, in turn, that the
questions to the candidates so far seem to indicate what the chapters
representatives care most about this election, and it's mostly
finances and related -- if I were, as you imply, only hypocritically
trying to win over hearts and minds for the election I think I would
be focusing on that!

regards,
-- phoebe