The debate on the Micrsoft Anti-Discrimination policy continues with some very interesting comments emerging.

There are quite a few strands to the debate now, but I want to focus on the "dirty linen in public" argument. (Some of these links are courtesy of Robert Scoble's linkblog).

Some folks are wondering if this stuff should be done out loud. For instance, Rick Segal says:

First, decide up front what the plan is with communications in/out of the company. And not some 80 page legal document either. No, something simple like, before you decide to 'go public' how about giving the family a chance to solve or get to the agree to disagree point, then off you go. Simple and all team like."

Adam Herscher is on the same lines:

Over the last couple of days, I’ve thought long and hard about both the issue itself, and about whether or not I should write my own opinions in my blog. I decided not to do so. Call me old fashioned, but I still think it’s usually a bad idea to challenge your employer (or in this case, future employer) publicly. I still believe that if you have a problem with the way your company is doing something, you work from within to change it. You challenge authority — internally.

DonS.CF thinks seeing this going on will scare a lot corporates off the whole idea of blogging:

I ask that all of those fortunate enough to be in a desirable corporate blogging situation to take a moment of pause whenever you post on sensitive subjects regarding your company. Please remember that you not only demonstrate the success of this communications vehicle, but also potential pitfalls.

And there are others saying, hey, why don't you get on with making some decent software instead of indulging in all this conflict? Tony Goodson might belong to this camp.

Could we do without Microsoft in our lives? Would the world be a worse place without Microsoft?

Overall, I'm feeling optimistic! I think the envelope of what's possible has been stretched a little. I don't think this is going to scare corporates off blogging, unless they're already too frightened to do it.

Some are concerned about the tone of the comments made to Steve Ballmer (while others like it). Well, people can always soften the tone - and actually that's often what happens as more air is allowed into an argument. That's what's good about having arguments in public; as per this manifesto, the best response to abuses of openness is more openness.

The linen isn't dirty, just multicoloured. Conflict can be good, even if it hurts a little sometimes. I disagree with Dave Winer's idea that companies shouldn't "do" politics; how can they NOT do politics? They only get to choose HOW they do politics and Microsoft here seem to be choosing to do it in the open. I like that.

I quite like Adam's further thought.

Maybe I’ve taken this to the extreme. Maybe we’re entering some new era where companies aren’t harmonious entities that strive for a succinct message and public image. Maybe companies are becoming more like governments, and employees more like citizens, each with their own opinions and with a blog as their mouthpiece.

Oh and harmony is made up of multiple different voices; what many companies end up with is monotony.

Between monotony and harmony, you may experience some turbulence. Fasten your seat belt.