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. There is a person active on these mailinglists who in 2016 was banned from these lists I asked whether or not I could use their example publicly to help explain this situation and they have not responded. Therefore I will assume they wish to retain their privacy and do my best to anonymise their circumstances. But I still need to use their example illustratively. Board voted on the behaviour individual in question. The Board deemed the behaviour inconsistent with the Project's Guiding Principles and decision was to give the individual a warning. The individual continued to act a similar way. The Board voted again. The decision was made to ban the user from the lists. After a while, the question as to whether or not unban the person, the board voted again, the decision was made to unban the user. The Board changed it's composition in the meanwhile. A number of people involved in the banning had no opportunity to be involved in the unbanning. Now, in 2018, the majority of the people involved are no longer on the Board, and are regular peers in the Project. Had all of the votes been public, the individual in question would have a direct list of who on the Board voted for their removal from these lists, and who did or didn't support their return. There is no way you could convince me that such a situation would be healthy for the Project. Grudges and bad feelings between the Board members and the individual would be unavoidable. Friends and allies of the banned individual could still be feeling hurt by the decisions of the Board members involved, or and could easily be carrying grudges against those individuals. Tensions over such topics would likely run for years long before the decision. But such decisions are still necessary from time to time. Unless saintly in character, it's almost certain the banned individual would have a harder time rehabilitating themselves in the Project. The anonymity of who in the Board voted for what has created a situation where the Board was able to pass it's decision, a decision which is NEVER comfortable, NEVER wanted, but sometimes necessary. They banned contributor remains surrounded by people who passed judgement on their suitability to remain in the Project. The fact that details of who voted for whom are not public prevents the sanctioned contributor to take the situation personally, and allows the Board members to carry on as regular contributors now they have left the Board. The banned individual has been successful in rehabilitating themselves, and the Board members have returned to non-Board life, in a way that I am certain would not have been possible if they were aware of the details of who voted for what when. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org