[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kat Walsh <kat at mindspillage.org> wrote:
...

> 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.

Yes, this. All of this. Thanks, Kat; you are always more eloquent than I am :)

As a board we've talked a lot about the most responsible way to
comment as a community member vs as part of this consensus-driven,
corporate body we call the board. We've talked about it because it's a
real concern for many of us -- the dilemma hits you pretty much from
day one, especially in our culture of community members talking about
everything. Ideally, of course, you do agree with board decisions and
how they're being carried out, but even in that case it's hard -- is
someone speaking as themselves or for the board if they express
support?

And truth be told you never get taken "as an individual" once you join
-- your opinions are always taken as "those of a board member",
whether you want them to be or not, and are tossed around politically
in consequence; and you are responsible for what the WMF does whether
you agree particularly with any individual action (or even know about
them). If you say something critical, are those opinions going to get
held against the WMF, or make someone's work more difficult, or make
the work of the board more difficult, or somehow shut down community
discussion? Is it safe to express an opinion if you're really not sure
what the right thing to do is, or will exploring a misguided approach
be held against you forever? All of those are questions that we
struggle with in every conversation (but especially in really
contentious discussions), which goes some way towards answering
David's original question.


> 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.

Agreed.

-- Phoebe