[CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being discussed

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

And we'll go over it again.

I agree we do not need to resolve these past issues here, but we must learn from them.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jul 12, 2015, at 19:05, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear George
> 
> With respect, we've been over this ground before.  In general, past
> practice, while interesting is not relevant to our discussion.  We are
> designing an accountability mechanism to bind the Board and community  going
> forward under changed circumstances.  In doing so we have been positing
> (through the stress test process) some modes of failure that we might
> anticipate.  The bounds of that consideration are the bounds of
> reasonableness and expectation.  We cannot defend against all risks and some
> risks are more likely  than others.  For that reason we've not considered a
> response to the zombie apocalypse :-).   But we have (and in my view must)
> consider many  situations that have not occurred in the past as risks that
> may eventuate in the future.  For me, past disagreements with the Board
> serve only one purpose -- to be a plausible predictor for likely future
> disputes.  At a minimum, the accountability mechanisms must address
> perceived past accountability failures -- i.e. these lists -- but we don't
> need to spend too much time dredging up old disputes and resolving them
> factually.  All of them (even the ones with contended facts) are plausible
> future scenarios that would need to be addressed even had they not
> previously been perceived to have occurred.
> 
> As I said, we've had the "how bad is the Board" discussion before.  I
> confess I have played the game a bit myself.  But in the end it isn't the
> question.  Even assuming the current Board is filled with saints who never
> have erred, they will not be the future Board, who may be saints as well,
> but who may be sinners.
> 
> Paul
> 
> Paul Rosenzweig
> [...]