On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 21:07:48 -0700, Richard Brown wrote:
I wouldn't describe my points as a 'slippery slope' argument, more like the 'wrong slope' argument
I'm not sure I agree - I'll have to give that some thought.
If the issue being presented to the Board is one that can be handled "in the open" in the way that you and others are advocating, then I argue that the issue shouldn't be presented to the Board as something for it to decide.
Then maybe the issue that started this wasn't appropriate for the board to decide, and should have been put to the membership.
Or...Maybe the function of the board is to distill the will of the project membership for decisions like this, as well as to deal with things that *are* best handled out of the public eye.
We support contributors who take the initiative, and when that is not an option we have the project mailinglist and countless other places and means for such things to be debated and decided.
Sure. But in the RACI chart for the project, the board *must* be accountable to the membership that elected them. That's why the board minutes are published, in part (so I assume).
The Board exist to be able to make the decisions that can't be handled in such an open fashion. And thus, we require the trust of the Project in order to be able to do our job with the discretion required of it.
Richard, you know that I trust the board. But that said, there's a question of accountability - "trust, but verify" is important for the membership to know that the board is doing what they were elected to do.
In order to make an informed decision when someone runs for a second term on the board, how is anyone to know that the person they're voting for is representing their interests if the decisions they make (or votes they cast) aren't open to public review?