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