On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 18:33:52 +0200, Richard Brown wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 17:48, James Mason <JMason@suse.com> wrote:
If one doesn't want to make their opinions public, for whatever reason, they should not run for office.
Fair points, but, unlike the Supreme court, Board membership is not for life.
Let me give a real world example, as much as I can.
This feels a lot like a 'slippery slope' argument to me, Richard. To me this is a pretty straightforward thing: Default to "open" unless there's a really good reason to not be open (for example, the privacy of a third party). Take a look at how kernel patches are handled - generally open, but in the case of Spectre/Meltdown, those patches needed to be handled in a closed manner until all OS vendors had an opportunity to address the issues - "responsible disclosure" overrode the need for openness. That doesn't mean that because there's occasionally a need to do things behind closed doors, all kernel patches are handled behind closed doors. The process defaults to open unless there's a compelling reason to not be open. The same principle applies here. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org