[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[phoebe ayers]

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 :)

best,
Phoebe

p.s. John, I misunderstood what David was referring to about it being
an election issue -- When I said that I meant that board
reconsideration of the resolution was raised independently of the
election; it's not meant to be timed for political reasons, as I
thought he was implying. Yes, of course, I did bring this topic up in
my statement.