On 11/27/2010 02:11 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
IMO we need to acknowledge that At-Large means essentially everyone who is *not* a contracted party.
In the At-Large review report (from which the director seat being filled emerged) we took an even more expansive view - that the at-large consists of people (natural persons as opposed to legal fictions such as corporations) who are affected by the internet. That definition leaves only an diminishing population outside the scope of the at-large. As to the point being discussed here - most of us are people who are intertwined with "the economy". It would be almost impossible to find a person who does not in some way engage in economic activity - (and I doubt that we would want such a person even if we could find one.) Part of the job of being a director is to be introspective to understand from whence one's motivations and opinions arise. A good director is able to separate his/her own private gainful drives from those of representing (or rather, synthesizing from a massive number of diverse and conflicting inputs) the opinions of the community of internet users. Being involved in business as a principal is not, at least not in my mind, a disqualifying characteristic. One of the reasons why I pound again and again on the idea that a director ought to publish a timely statement of how and why he/she reached each decision is that such a statement allows "the community" to view and, if necessary, make an expression that would allow a good director to revisit his/her methods of making decisions. A director *will* make mistakes. The measure of a good director is whether he/she is able to interact with the community to better conform his/her choices to the opinion of community. (A good director may sometimes chose to go against the opinion of the community, but he/she ought to express a strong reason why.) --karl--