Le 22/01/2011 03:05, Pascal Bleser a écrit :
Jean-Daniel, basically, you're saying that you don't trust any of the people who are on the current openSUSE board nor the few other persons who signed the OP on the thread.
If you trust at least a few of the people who's names were at the bottom of that mail, then this discussion is moot. Everything else can be read in that mail.
I can't desagree more. Do you trust your government? I hope so. even the laws, rules and judgements are mostly public.
I think you're just trying to substitute one version of secrecy for another.
family problems don't have to be discussed publicly (only the result of the discussion have to be known by everybody). When it's about membership, I beg the members are directly concerned.
Spot on. It is mind-boggling that the same people who want transparency on an issue that requires respecting people's privacy are now rooting for a private mailing-list (that includes them).
as many noted, privacy don't mean secrecy. It means only long threads like this one don't have to be at large exposed to the public. Don't you see that now most of the readers wont read from the beginning to the end, but only one post or an other, so having a biased view of the discussion. The simple lenght of the discussion is discouraging on a wide open list.
I hope a few people can take a (mental) step back and see the irony here.
don't you see you are building a precedent? if this is accepted, any board may remove any people saying it's in regard to the principle, but in fact with no control. It's easy to see in the history problems arising with such action. I don't "blindly trust" any body (specially people I don't yet know - think of the near future).
You are, at least, acknowledging that some things require confidentiality / secrecy. The question is then what things and who will be admitted to "the secret". You are requesting that you be in the inside group and creating a much larger group of secrets.
I was asked to be in the group that give advice about membership (notation of the candidacy). I dislike this (beeing coopted for that), but can understand it's necessary on the beginning. That's why I suggested two things (curious, nobody quoted the first): having the new members coopted by *all* the members (just have to adapt the notation), and then the members having a private conversation path. nothing can be totally transparent, and nothing have to be completely closed. In the french national assembly, the assembly discussions are public, but not the commissions work. If you think secrecy is partly necessary, you should understand that there should be some levels of infos necessary. not all is white or black. You could have kept some infos secret for the board eyes and give some more to the members (after all, they may have to know what they don't have do do practically not to be fired..."respecting the guiding principle" don't mean anything without example of what is the contrary).
you don't. If you don't, elect a new board and stand for election yourself.
Couldn't agree more, thank you for a bit of common sense in this mess.
sorry, the "remove secretly a member" was not on the board roadmap. jdd by the way, you said "ask the board privately". I sent you a private mail asking two days ago, with no answer. May be you missed it, I can send it again if necessary. -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org