[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:30 AM, 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.

"definetely more interesting things to talk about"? Like how to arrange the
deckchairs maybe?

>
> 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).

It is extremely hard not to get sarcastic here. So I will just say nothing.

> 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.

If you really think so. I am genuinely dissapointed. I will not elaborate
on that in a public forum.

> 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?

With the composition of tne board very out of touch of with
the community, it is very hard not to to dismiss this as a pure
irrelevance.

> 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.

This bit I understand wholly. But there is that awkward bit that you are
not just a part of it, but a *trustee*. You are not elected there to be a
part of a job-mill. You are out there to fight the good fight for the rest
of us.The one thing that you never should have held compromisable
is not any single issue or multipe issues you would not compromise
over but that you there not representing your values, but your
understanding of ours, the community. Those are the standards
you should judge yourself by, as should others.

>
> 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.

I am sorry but I think I can't let you off quite this easily. In what
universe was it a "viable starting position"? It, and all ideas
remotely like it never got any traction before. Maybe if you
think "We got nowhere before on this, we can only do better."

As to being surprised by searches. Talk to google image search.
Do you think they have mastered the art?

> So I supported the resolution and now I support rescinding it, at
> least in part. I don't think this is inconsistent with anything on my
> part, nor on Phoebe's.

I have to say I agree. Perfectly consistent.


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