[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, 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.

> Phoebe

I do understand the reticience to speak as a person when one is a part of
a body that represents a consensus reached by highly diplomatic speach.
The only downside (I will not say, a flaw.) with this is that it does not deter
hyperbole, but encourages it, in descriptions of what the consensus driven
body is doing. There has to be some modus operandi that could alleviate
that. One would be that when there is a genuine consensus, people in the
consensus driven body speak with one voice and take collective responsibility
(some would say blame) for that, even if they have minor differnces. But if
the concensus is only achieved through very elusive means, the body could
decide (as a consensus) that people be allowed to express their own private
views to the public with a slight latitude. Even parliamentarism acknowledges
such terms as "free votes" that allow decisionmakers to let their constitutients
have a genuine sense where their representatives hearts truly lie.


-- 
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]