[Dev] Transparency

Jorge Araya Navarro elcorreo at deshackra.com
Sat Feb 21 03:19:04 GMT 2015

hellekin writes:

> 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
> Version: GnuPG v2
> iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU2bb+XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.parabola.nu
> https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev

Oh, well, you are actually right...

Pax et bonum.
Jorge Araya Navarro.
ES: Diseñador Publicitario, Programador Python y colaborador en Parabola GNU/Linux-libre
EN: Ads Designer, Python programmer and contributor Parabola GNU/Linux-libre
EO: Anonco grafikisto, Pitino programalingvo programisto kai kontribuanto en Parabola GNU/Linux-libre

More information about the Dev mailing list