Leadership Amidst Controversy
Josh Susser on the controversy stemming from a conference under his stewardship. I think Mr. Susser shows both class and real leadership with this post. His response is an example of why the Ruby community is worth it.
Josh Susser on the controversy stemming from a conference under his stewardship. I think Mr. Susser shows both class and real leadership with this post. His response is an example of why the Ruby community is worth it.
Comments
blahblahblah
Good post. I think he’s gotten it right. What worries me, though, is the opinion, expressed by many commentators, that the editorial process is invalid or unnecessary.
It’s as necessary at a conference as on a newspaper, professional blog, or magazine for there to be an “editor” (or someone in a similar role) who doesn’t have to agree with or shape the opinions of presenters / writers, but who can veto and control what goes out under their name. This process should not lead to “dull” content or presentations but merely to reshaping those that don’t fit with the event/publication’s image. (I’d expect a crazy, experimental conference’s editor/chair to ensure that all presentations are pretty exciting, say.)
zzzzzzzZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzz.
Personally I think there was more value in the dustup than there would have been in censoring the subject. Since this does appear to be a community issue it deserves to be treated by the community. IMHO Censoring/Editing speakers is not the way to go.
I don’t think editing is censorship. Editors don’t censor as much as curtail or recraft unethical, illegal or distasteful behavior (rather than opinions). Besides, you can never really censor anyone nowadays; if they have something to say, they will find a venue. If editing is good enough for professional print and online media, it’s good enough for professional efforts in other media. Of course, unconferences, BarCamps, etc, should never be censored in this way.. much like personal blogs shouldn’t.
Post a comment