| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> |
| 5 |
>> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > |
| 7 |
>> > Ironically, being open and responsive to tinfoil-esque comments actually |
| 8 |
>> > will do a great deal to dispel tinfoil-esque paranoia going forward. |
| 9 |
>> > |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> While that seems like a reasonable hypothesis, I fear that it isn't |
| 12 |
>> well-established with data. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> In any case I support being open just to be open, and so far the |
| 15 |
>> people who have been in dual-roles have chosen to recuse themselves, |
| 16 |
>> so this seems mostly like a hypothetical argument. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'd prefer an option to opt out rather than a mandatory stepping down, but I |
| 19 |
> am not outright opposed to it. I have no gory details of naughty things |
| 20 |
> guiding my viewpoint, just trusting that if WilliamH has concerns, others |
| 21 |
> probably do too. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To be clear, I prefer the status quo, which is that Council members |
| 25 |
can recuse themselves if they want to but are under no obligation to |
| 26 |
do so. I was just pointing out that since everybody is already doing |
| 27 |
this who would be affected a policy change wouldn't have much |
| 28 |
practical effect. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Personally I disagree with the decisions of these Council members to |
| 31 |
recuse themselves, and if I were ever in that position I would not |
| 32 |
recuse myself unless I had personal involvement in the case. I don't |
| 33 |
see it coming up anytime soon, not least of which because I'm |
| 34 |
currently on none of the affected teams. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But, one of the benefits of democracy is that we get to shoot |
| 37 |
ourselves in the foot if we prefer... :) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives