Nunn Garcia wrote:
> Picking on Robin example, I too am in favour of a fully open
> discussion. One should be responsible enough to take charge of his
> views and of his words.
> 
> To help masquerade a discussion is to encourage and allow for
> nonsense, hidden agendas, corruption, and so on.
> 
> Just as I am against anonymous messages, I am againts the use of this Rule.
> 
> If one has an opinion, let it be heard. If it deserves criticism of
> others, one should take this criticism with dignity.
> 
> If one's opinion cannot stand the scrutiny of good sense and wisdom,
> then its better to keep it for oneself, allowing it to grow and mature
> until is time to be brought to light.
> 
> Overall de-responsabilisation is never a good choice.

Chatham house rules have their place. That place is for a discussion of 
philosophical ideas and concepts where something particularly contentious 
needs discussion and where the only way to get that is for a wide variety of 
viewpoints to be anonymously expressed as a starting point.

However, Chatham House Rules have no place in any decision-making process 
which can lead to a final outcome. There, transparency and the needs of the 
broader community to understand the vested interests of those making points 
in a debate which leads to decision-making. For the same reason any 
representational decision-making body must have open not secret ballots. 
Those who are represented must be able to judge their representatives on 
their record of voting AND on their record of argument.




-- 
Dr Andrew A Adams, School of Systems Engineering
The University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AY, UK
Tel:44-118-378-6997 E-mail:[log in to unmask]
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/~sis00aaa/

From 1st April 2010:
Professor, Graduate School of Business Administration, and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo