On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:32 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers <phoebe.w...@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]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
