Are WE ready to move forward with a draft motion in favour of embedded 3rd party links on WE?

Jump to: navigation, search

Looking back, at the time it seemed to me that the lazy consensus vote mixed at least two issues. (1) All would agree that WE should enable media rich learning experiences. But, if we just say that we should (2) enable "embedded 3rd party links" (e.g. to resources on YouTube, ...), that raises a host of issues and risks as we have seen in the discussions (and above). It was not clear to me whether the lazy-consensus vote represented a full understanding of these issues.

If we had asked for a lazy consensus vote on "should WE only serve media in free/open file formats", would we have the same consensus? Which way would the consensus be?

On the other hand, if the "3rd parties" are carefully chosen, and WE are effectively in control of the media files being served (in free file formats) and of the meta-data, then the risks outlined above are reduced, and we may remain true to our values. The straw dog 2 motion (now incorporated into straw dog 3) addresses the issues in a way which (I think) is aligned with the lazy-consensus.

KTucker (talk)22:01, 7 May 2010