[Dev] Transparency

[ingegnue]

On February 10, 2015 2:45:10 AM EST, hellekin <hellekin at gnu.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>On 02/09/2015 07:54 PM, André Silva wrote:
>> On 02/09/2015 07:30 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
>> 
>>> ehr... sorry, i pressed the wrong emacs combination :P
>> 
>>> what does everyone think about creating a list for parabola+ceata 
>>> communications, where everyone can read but only the delegate and
>>> ceata can post?  this, of course, to provide transparency in our 
>>> communications, and if someone wants to write any participant they
>>> can do so in private, but it won't be an official communication.
>> 
>> 
>> +1 Good idea! I agree because it provides a transparency
>communication
>> for us and gives to the community a way to propose our ideas.
>>
>*** I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to promote "transparent
>communication", and I certainly don't think it's relevant to advancing
>the issue at this point.  If the current proposal is accepted, fauno
>will be the delegate, and how this is handled is an implementation
>detail.  Decision first, then implementation.
>
>If you insist on implementation, I'm for accountability, not
>transparency, and certainly not to "everyone".  It's important *for the
>community* to be able to access tracking documents, but not for the
>public.  It's important *for the community* to be able to access
>tracking documents *if necessary*, but having random people lurking and
>bikeshedding at every step is going to wear out the delegate quite
>fast.
> Accountability and TOFU.  Privacy and freedom.  Not transparency and
>the tyranny of structurelessness.
>
>The delegate should come to the community with:
>
>- - understanding of the need of CEATA
>- - a proposal to satisfy that need
>
>The community should provide the delegate with a clear response:
>
>- - yes, it's fine
>- - yes with patches
>- - no
>
>The delegate should go back to CEATA with:
>
>- - no, that need cannot be satisfied, but
>- - with such and such changes it would work, or
>- - yes, let's do it.
>
>This last step is what needs to be accountable but opaque.  The details
>of the communication between the delegate and CEATA are irrelevant to
>the process that is public otherwise.  It's important to have a record
>of it, but the role of a delegate is exactly to avoid having many
>voices
>raised during a conversation.
>
>More importantly, it's a recipe for disaster.  While you give attention
>to this, you're not working on your own tasks.  The goal is to deliver
>a
>distro, not to micro-manage the delegate.
>
>My $0.02
>
>==
>hk
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v2
>
>iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU2bb+XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
>ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0
>ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9Nq0P/0aYOXFyb+pfWAgwQKwL4vJi
>1kwUb5+gLTYU+B5u8CCcBeLSvVQsrfbSiBX5WszcIGp+CtXPY7oftdleFxE6OUzq
>eAnYGDoch+nayxEt0SE7PqMysaURfas3PYOeD/j89REIM5yRU6ptKBDB5STznmfD
>Prn1axO/KLF3X+zpr2khaxeXrvmr1GrENgDy6DM1s8Hdn5kdpNsZ2zVq3tTg03x0
>gqA9hh1DGR8nhr0K+zbExx69MGVsHkHNBREvuXY5inc7RetkVk0Wq/jCH3kGKuvG
>Zqm3RGl7nxzSug/zY6fBhS2eIUIimIhcb4X+0wdbT+stFIZAvRbWkgftp3W0akvL
>IfXEU5r5qsdNfyDUbrkj0ZtolKlxJ0CgCB/6iCY5uwbsdAHF5gcES0fyd+ibwvAy
>ppnuqSAXAQA1HeHsvCmueGmHqKQ6CQL+EpEvtVLO3dM4mqbsQJkIAAVm72qvNxhc
>OYoQgRH4D7yG5Zc67ZI4EOOnmzHkMw5p3OlKpHcnWXP86o9vxyCIsLSfERVOpKhk
>qTZYKrN4r9JURw/V81pMkV+D8+tlN4jACB9cA3WNOvzBioyr1y77dRSXcFaEMQFC
>5pQIyVD2XjffiX3JPk1viiU1Wjb/r9ytxAlu4zO+WsXz/mh/8AHK361Qy4/vP9BB
>e0wB9tWVceX5kjZdSK14
>=n3Wf
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>Dev mailing list
>Dev at lists.parabola.nu
>https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev


+1 Hmm, yes, good point..