[CCWG-ACCT] An implication of accountability models being discussed
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
el at lisse.NA
Mon Jul 13 19:32:41 UTC 2015
We do not need to "re-litigate" (as it were) the old incidents, we
need to find out why they happened (see Kieren's response to Steve
Crocker, today)), and what we can do to prevent them from happening.
In my view we should not even look so much into sanctions for
misbehavior (after the fact), in particular minimum-necessary fixes,
for what we know today only and not future issues which will
inveitably be attempted to be exploited by enterprising Staff and
Board Members, but for prevention.
On 2015-07-13 19:47 , Steve DelBianco wrote:
> George and Steve may want to delve into past accountability
> problems, but I agree with Jonathan Zuck’s forward-looking
> When we designed Stress Tests for this transition, we deliberately
> avoided re-visiting incidents from the past. That’s because any
> recitation of a particular accountability incident will inevitably
> generate objections about how we describe what happened. You can
> just hear people commenting, “That’s not exactly what
> happened.” or “there were other factors at work.” etc.
> Instead of reliving history, the Stress Test team designed
> plausible scenarios that would test whether our proposal(s) would
> let the AC/SO community challenge the corporation for its
> decisions, actions or inactions, and hold the corporation
> That said, it’s easy to see that some of the stress test
> scenarios are modeled on incidents that /have/ occurred in the
> recent past. But by generalizing with future scenarios, we get
> the benefit of stress testing — without the baggage of arguing
> over what actually happened in the past.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4198 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community