On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 16:00, Jim Henderson firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
I wouldn't describe my points as a 'slippery slope' argument, more like the 'wrong slope' argument
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.
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.
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.