[OpenID] (privacy) endorsement, John Bradley

[SitG Admin]

These three points largely mitigate my earlier criticisms:

>If more people will present a similar objection, I will have no 
>problem with the board voting for changing the privacy policy as 
>long as it is allowed by the state of Oregon for non-profit 
>corporation.

>Should a board member be removed because of that? Well, that's 
>another vote and if it was intentional, I would vote to remove that 
>person.

>If existing members or enough potential members cared about it to 
>contact the board, I will be happy to revisit this policy and will 
>likely support an opt-in mechanism.

If you are willing to set your personal beliefs aside and work with 
the community and Board to implement such things, not actively 
working against such things just because *you* don't think they're 
appropriate and/or necessary, I'm (of course, logically) less 
concerned about your election to a Board position resulting in 
reduced privacy measures and/or anyone getting away with privacy 
violations.

At that point you're equivalent to any Board member who is neutral on 
the matter.

>Technically, true. But in practice, in this community, on this list, 
>living based on this assumption is paranoia.

I live that way, period. In practice, not just theory. I'm confused 
as to how one would live *differently* than I do, who DOES make such 
assumptions.

>Now you are just being silly. I never said there is no such thing as 
>privacy in general. My statement was clearly made in reference to 
>the web.

Right! And my reply was made in the context of that statement, so I 
didn't see a need to add "online" to every mention of privacy. I 
thought it would be just as clear.

The special circumstance in this case is "online"; since you've 
clarified that you wouldn't actively oppose member privacy when 
acting as a Board member, and would hold people accountable for 
intentional breaches of privacy (even though you, personally, don't 
think privacy exists online), I don't see much to be worried about 
anymore.

>I'm done with this thread.

Thanks for continuing the discussion long enough to clarify your 
position. I don't see any need to continue it, at this point; you've 
addressed my concerns to my satisfaction :)

-Shade