On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Steven Krivit wrote:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your reply.
As for the advantage to the CMNS list to maintain privacy, this is a
requirement for open, frank and sometimes critical discussion. For
example, I would want to be able to tell a person that his data is
wrong without that information being made public. Such public
disclosure might cause embarrassment to the person or his loss of
support. I would want to discuss the situation and have my
concerns
addressed so that the work could be improved in the future.
But Ed, that makes no sense at all. Why on earth would you send
something potentially embarrassing to an Internet list which is so
loosely regulated as the CMNS list instead of sending the email
directly to the person and only that person?
Well Steve, a compromise has to be made. If the issue I had with
another person were serious, I would, as you suggest, use private e-
mail. However, a discussion within a group can frequently get more
information to the person and in a more acceptable form than a private
discussion. We all count on privacy being maintained by no one outside
of the group taking an interest in what is said. You have taken an
interest. As a result, you have created an issue we have to resolve.
On the other side of the coin, I want criticism from other people
about my
work without having to feel the risk of a public display of my
faults. I could do this by private e-mail, which I sometimes do, but
the list takes advantage of the different ideas and experiences
that a
group provides.
I certainly see and agree with that benefit of the list.
But you say, you would not reveal such information. Perhaps not, but
you are already blaimed for shutting down Ross' work by showing its
flaws in public. While I agree, you were not the cause of Ross'
problems, nevertheless you showed a policy that other people fear.
What policy was that?
The policy I'm referring to is to publish information that is
potentially damaging to an individual. While I agree, some branches of
journalism do this for a living and they do a great service when the
information impacts on us all. Nevertheless, not all information has a
general impact, hence does not need to be made public. Generally, a
good reporter makes a judgement based on the desired result.
An ordinary reporter can get away with this because he works on a
broad
range of issues and with a large group of people. You, on the other
hand, are in a narrow field and have to maintain relationships with a
small group of people. This requires a more careful and nuanced
approach.
Careful and nuanced approach: You mean like what you told me on July
19?
Yes, this is one consideration. However, each potential public
revelation will have different nuances, some of which are important
and some can be ignored. I can't anticipate all possibilities. If
publication is done with permission of the individual, the nuance no
longer matters.
"Your article about George and later about Macy created an
impression that you are more concerned with the 'truth' than with
people. This makes people uncertain about who might be next.
Consequently, you need to be more careful in how you reveal the
truth about the field. Eventually, the field will be big enough and
so well accepted, a little plainly spoken truth would not cause you
any problem."
I hope this makes sense without the distraction of feeling that I'm
being hostile.
Well, I'm not sure about your personal assessment of who and what I
am (media,) - I will need to ponder that a bit - but in general I
do appreciate your polite message.
Normally, I would send this as a private response,
since it does not concern anyone on Vortex.
However, you sent this to
me through Vortex so I'm responding the same way. I apologize to
people who find this exchange unimportant.
I think this is a valuable topic to be discussed on Vortex since it
pertains to some key aspects of how CMNS is reported. I for one,
benefit from the ideas and critiques from the members of this list.
And I certainly have nothing to hide.
I respect this approach and hope to continue the discussion. Perhaps
to save other people from the need to delete this, we continue in
private.
Best regards,
Ed
Best regards,
Steve
