Le samedi 01 septembre 2018, à 21:07 -0700, Richard Brown a écrit :
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.
This is true when this is when it comes to handling a conflict, but the board does more than that: for instance, it has an influence on the budget, or the organization of oSC, and more.
What I understand that people are pointing out is that these other topics do not need as much discretion, and transparency is expected there.
The way this can be approached, and that is pretty close to what I feel the current board is doing, is that by default, topics should be considered as "to be documented publicly" unless there's a good reason to not do so -- and I'm being vague here on purpose as you can't predict what topic may not be appropriate to detail in minutes; I trust the board to take the right decision.
The minutes that have been shared lately already offer some pretty good transparency (although votes are not included -- which I'm fine with). If anything, I feel the board has actually been too transparent about the conflicts in the minutes as it's something I would simply not document publicly as it can influence the conflict resolution negatively.