On 08/27/2018 11:02 AM, James Mason wrote:
The fact that you can use it as an example now exactly supports my point. In your example, the rehabilitated member could just as easily look at who was on the board at the time and blame everyone equally - hiding the votes doesn't shield members of the board, it just creates opacity.
"I do not think that [logic[ means what you think it means." - Me, when I rewrite "Princess Bride" and play the villain Vizzini myself.
Blaming everybody else is anybody's right for what goes wrong (banning from lists as an example), and humans do it pretty well as a rule. Since it (banning) happened, undoubtedly it needed to happen since most people I have met are more likely to be lenient, particularly in a community-run organization, than ban somebody. As a result, we can trust it was needed because most people on the Board voted for it, but then there were probably still arguments for both sides, maybe even dissenters in the final vote, but what value is there in airing all of this? The results of doing so are at least:
1. Internal pressure on board members to be less-controversial, i.e. NOT do what was necessary in enacting the ban; this is a natural reaction in order to avoid #2. 2. Create hard feelings with individuals on the board, rather than the Board as an entity or the project as an entity, which could lead to harassment before or after directly to those members. 3. Create hard feelings between the banned and those who originally requested the ban (not necessarily on the board). It seems like if all voting details are shared, then the original requests for removal should also be shared. 4. Make a return (for the banned) to the project harder. It is hard for people to lose face and then come back, even if the community is completely open, accepting, forgiving, etc. Since this return has happened, it seems like hard things have been accomplished, and the project is likely better for it. With personal grudges for board members, or others who complained about the poor behavior, would that have been accomplished? Maybe. 5. Time may be completely wasted documenting what people may never read, or may be less-inclined to read because of how long it is. Take this e-mail for example; nobody's going to read it once I'm done typingall of this.
Can you imagine the next time we have a pre-voting chat with potential board members after the ban in an everything-public world? The social media world should make it pretty clear what is likely, or at least more likely, in that case.
Possible question: "Candidate A: I understand you are opposed to people expressing their views when they are different from your own, and have even kicked people out of the mailing lists when you felt like it. Care to comment?"
The board members deserve a bit more respect than that, but so do most people attacked online or in person. Words are fun for use and abuse.
All of this typing of mine may be moot, since I think you and I may be more closely aligned than the first part of your response lead me to believe; see below.
And I agree with Patrick & Henne here; no one is asking for every little detail - especially when it comes to respecting the rights of the Membership; I'm just asking for more clarity about decisions that are made, _why_ they are made, and what arguments were made in dissent of the decision.
Striking a default documentation balance will be the hard part. Recording all conversations is Orwellian, and apparently the current minutes (on their own) may be insufficient for some. How much cost (not just monetary) do we justify for having more detail? How much time do we want people who are there to use their brains and make decisions to now be spent typing up notes on the off chance somebody cares? How much time do we want those same folks reviewing the recorded minutes to ensure everything is perfect before releasing to the mob?
I write "off chance" because this is the first time I remember seeing this topic come up, and maybe that is just because the notes were made more obvious this time, but that's pretty ironic if true: the presence of more information causing more problems by leading to arguments asking for more information?
Is it against any rules to ask follow-up questions which the Board (as a group) could respond-to as appropriate? Some have already expressed they would answer questions if asked, and if responding is appropriate. This would potentially let the minutes be succinct but not rule out membership requests for details, like "Which soccer/football team?" or "How much dud it cost?" or "What publicity does that bring in for the project?" Questions on "Who was banned?" or other things could be no-comment'd.
The pre-election chat where questions were asked of candidates was the right place to find out about candidates' fit for Board positions, and it included questions that seemed very Board-ly. I'm sure the chat is online somewhere if any of us were not there or have not read it already.
While I, personally, have a level of faith in the Board to "Do The Right Thing", that does not supercede the need to witness that the Board actually _did_.
I think you're confusing, or are being ambiguous about, the Board vs. board members. The Board already releases minutes, and since I think most of us can see the value in not releasing every detail ever covered all the time always, we then are left to trust the Board to self-regulate the minutes released. There is no way to monitor what they choose not to release, and there are compelling reasons to NOT have everything ever discussed. Let's find a middle ground (see above) that makes sense so the board can do their job, feel like they will not be harassed or attacked for doing it, and we can have more faith/trust in them than we do now (if possible).
Not related to your latest post, while the Supreme Court analogy works in some ways, it also falls flat (as all analogies do) in others. Specifically:
1. Justices are not elected, board members are. 2. Justices cannot be fired for their decisions, board members must run again, and there may be other ways to get rid of them (I do not know). 3. Justices have nothing else to do; this is their full time, paid, job. Board members presumably must put food on their tables, and openSUSE isn't doing it for them. 4. Justices are a little trained in the law, not volunteers who are willing to spend time in order to represent others like them. Board members are trained in whatever they want, likely not related to board membership, or civil service in general. 5. Justices are on an appellate court, meaning they do not try issues the first time, or even the second time (usually), but are the end of the line. They cannot see a problem out in the world and take it on, but somebody must bring a case, with constitutional problems, to them. Board members can focus on things they bring to the table themselves. 6. Justices deal with the law impacting everybody in the land, and those people may not be able to leave the land. Board members... not so much. 7. Justices mostly deal with country-specific issues; Board members deal with those pesky cross-pond people too.
This is not to say that the arguments are all invalid, but some of those qualities of the justices make the case (pun intended) different for them than for our Board members.