Before anyone thinks that I am against the anti-harassment policy,
let me state up front that I am not. That said...
On Wed, November 6, 2013 7:23 am, Dave Crocker wrote:
[snip]
For the anti-harassment policy, we happen to have pretty obvious and
massively strong community support for developing the policy. That we
also have plenty of evidence that some folk will never be satisfied with
whatever text emerges is a distraction. Once those folk have had their
say and the group has discussed their concnerns constructively and hass
attempted to resolve the concerns, we are not obligated to please such
folk.
If there is actually "pretty obvious and massively strong support" then
there is not only rough consensus, there is some pretty solid consensus.
And then there's no need to assign a facilitator to track and resolve
issues. We're done.
But the sentiment expressed above is unfortunate I think because it
dismisses dissent and just pay lip service to addressing the concerns
that dissent represents. You're talking about entering into a supposedly
consensus building process with the notion that the decision is already
made. That's a recipe for just pissing people off.
Replace "the anti-harassment policy" with some policy you don't like
and then read it again as if I said it to you.
Dan.