Way to completely miss the point.
Sometimes, the rule of nonattribution is necessary to foster open exchange of views. Nothing anyone has said disputes that.
If you disagree, disagree before the meeting, not after.
-george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 7, 2014, at 9:31 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On the other other hand, having any sort of "Chatham House Rule" in an organisation which prides itself as having openness and transparency as one of its core tenets......think about it people..........
Hell, we once had Oliver Keyes spouting on IRC how lowly he thinks of Jimmy Wales (in addition to attacking other editors) and he was rewarded with a promotion and a shout-out from Sue at Wikimania, so seriously, the organisation has no need for any "Chatham House Rule".
What is the issue here, isn't so much the comment that was made, but the context in which it was made. We keep hearing about context. Well give us context guys. Surely the context isn't a secret?
Or will you all prove true Fae's comments: "corrupts the movement by turning the "higher ranks" into an Old Boys Club who are more likely to find ways to cover up for each other, rather than be seen to be accountable."
Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe