On 2/18/16 12:05 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > If we follow the path of writing down all the rules for this, we need > a procedure to follow in this imaginary case (and probably a dozen > others I could think of if I tried). If we follow the path of > assuming that the so-called leadership will behave in a responsible > fashion, we don't need any of those rules. If we assume the counter-factual conditional; that we can limit the potential for exposure to bad actors through rule-making (as opposed to consensus decisions) we're down an incredibly strange wormhole. If a process describes, how to install people in roles, what the roles do, and how to remove them if the community concludes that they've strayed, and that proves to be workable, we're doing pretty good. > And if we don't think that > the so-called leadership will behave in a responsible fashion, then I > think we should be worrying about an altogether different set of > issues. > > Best regards, > > A >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature