On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 01:22:52AM -0800, Rick wrote:
Why is it every time an admin does something that
somebody disagrees
with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging
after them with the rest of the mob?
I see no hounds, torches, or mob. I see a sincere attempt to require
explanations and hold people accountable when there is reason to suspect
that they have betrayed the trust placed in them due to a conflict of
interest in violation of policy.
(Note that I do not claim that the trust has been betrayed here. I _do_
hold that there has been presented here adequate _reason to suspect so_,
and thus that there needs to be explanation and accountability.)
Being expected to explain actions that appear to be in conflict of
interest is _not_ persecution. It is "trust, but verify". The
community does in fact place trust in the administrators (otherwise,
they would not be the administrators). However, when an issue like this
comes up, we need that trust to be verified.
I would prefer to know for certain that nothing corrupt went on here.
However, until there is a good and credible explanation offered, none of
us can know that, and we are left with only ugly suspicions on one side
and baseless feelings of persecution on the other.
--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>