On Speaking Out as Brights
The ascription of authorship/endorsement should name the set of co-signatories or, at minimum, be clear about who (beyond the authors) gives approval to the document or product.
How many Brights are authorizing the material?
The support should be clearly stated in unambiguous fashion.
Note: The following is the same annotation as provided under Policy Specific 3
A product which sets out political or other opinion associated with any Brights’ attribution should give particulars in a professional and public fashion.
If an opinion product (article, essay, book review, documentary, etc.) has an attribution of provenance tying it to the Brights movement, it is incumbent on those who devised it to be candid in their communications.
Persons who are members of a Brights’ Local Constituency, the Brights’ Forum, a Brights’ MeetUp, a Brights’ project list-serve, and so on) have an obligation to provide unambiguous information regarding the number of Brights sanctioning their cooperative statements. The publicly named author will either specify additional signatories/endorsers or, if they are too numerous to name (as will sometimes be the case), will be forthright about the number of such persons.
- A Brights’ Forum product should provide e-mail contact(s) for the author/co-authors,
- It should carry a publication/posting date and, if likely to be edited, a version number as well.
- It should make clear the number of Brights that do support the entirety of the material
- Ideally these products/versions are archived within the Forum itself, even if formally published elsewhere.
Example: an op-ed submission in a local newspaper where author(s) can provide contact information required by newspaper policy
These are appropriate signatory statements:
Carl Johannson, a Bright
Laverne and Edwin Harden, Brights
Sally Smith and 35 other San Francisco Brights
(Sally is representing persons in a Brights Local Constituency whose endorsements of the piece Sally can readily demonstrate)
Sven Lindstrom, Correspondent pro tem for 51 members of The Brights’ Forum
(Public identification with the Brights’ Forum necessitates that Sven, as a Forum member, use its collaborative Action Forum process. Doing so, he has garnered some other Forum members’ approval for his op-ed submission and posted his final version within the Forum, along with his evidence of endorsement)
Examples of signatory statements that would quite clearly not be appropriate:
Bob Jones for The Brights’ Net Forum
Paulo Francesca, on behalf of Brights all over the world
Karena Lubovich, speaking for The Brights