3 ms·
The number of people in this comment thread who have not read this report in detail is outstandingly large. It is a 100+ page document and I've been reading it
by sadfaceunread 13y ago
The number of people in this comment thread who have not read this report in detail is outstandingly large. It is a 100+ page document and I've been reading it for longer than this link has been active and I still haven't finished reviewing finely enough to comment intelligently on the contents.
- sadfaceunread 13y agoUpdate: Still on Part III. I am amazed that people are posting like they have gotten through it all.
- sadfaceunread 13y agoFinally read all the the text and most appendices (skipped the definition of terms at the end). Overall I think that this report is very long but unfortunately difficult to process. In the end it, in compliance with its charge, does not propose recommendations but merely provides statements of facts, and identifies critical questions. The overall opinion I'm left with is that the legal system is incredibly complex, and that MIT's decision to take a position of neutrality and active disinterest in the case while a defensible position made it harder for the administration and others to act. In the end MIT did not identify an outcome it wanted for the process, which is _okay_ but far from world leading, or inspiring. I agree with the sentiment of the report in the conclusion that " Looking back on the Aaron Swartz case, the world didn’t see leadership. As one person involved in the decisions put it: “MIT didn’t do anything wrong; but we didn’t do ourselves proud. "
- NelsonMinar 13y agoI think this is the one weakness of this report; no one is going to read it. I'm hoping someone writes a useful summary to satisfy the tl;dr culture. OTOH that seems disrespectful; if you really care about MIT and Aaron, read the damned report.
- danielweber 13y agoA lot of people are just rehashing arguments from six months ago.