On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 01:34:59 +0200, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
With all due respect to Gertjan (who is a fellow forums admin), his responses to Brian were in a similar vein to some of Linus' rants at other developers (perhaps a bit tamer), yet he doesn't seem to have been given any sort of formal warning here.
I've already apologized for language used, and for an emotional reaction. I still regret having been harsh. Given that, I don't think Bryan would have like his actions made public, and yes, I did bring that up, in private as well as in the board. Where Bryan never brought up these things until his term was done, and that hurt.
Right, and I saw your apology. I hope Brian did as well.
My point in raising your comments to Bryan wasn't to call you out; it was to point out that Christian's comments about Linus' behaviour on LKML perhaps not being tolerated on our lists is actually probably not accurate.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I've found this much more constructive than some of the other sub-discussions here.
I'd like to mention some things here, from the thread:
- The board has never been more transparent ( Vincent/Wafaa ) than
currently. - One of the ongoing items in the board meetings ( with publishing regular minutes on the project ML ) actually is transparency. Do not expect us to be perfect in this matter. FWIW we decided NOT to discuss this ( thread ) in our yesterday BM, instead to keep it here, with us as individuals taking part.
Yes, there is progress. But just because it's better now doesn't mean it can't still improve.
- What does sadden me: I've always felt that after standing up for board
( not my personal plan, but on community request ) I could count votes as a statement of trust in that I would work as a board member in the interest of the community. From this thread I get that doesn't fit. If I would have known I'd be out in the open "stark naked", I doubt I would have stepped up. Has it ever occurred to someone that as a board member my first priority is the community, not by personal desires / opinions? That this ( it hasn't, but still ) might influence my vote, having the knowledge as a board member now, but not before being elected?
As I said, trust is a two-way street. Yes, I (personally) have trust in the board. I know a few members of the board personally, or through work we've done together (as with you in the forums).
But I find it somewhat disconcerting that there's an aversion in the board to being "as open as possible" on topics where there aren't privacy concerns for a third party. That tells me that the board, to some degree, doesn't trust the community, and that concerns me.
Since Richard mentioned the MIB quote, let me counter with one of my own, from "A Few Good Men" - "You can't handle the truth!" - that's what it feels like the board is saying about the community.
I think the vast majority of the community is adult enough to be trusted with understanding more detail about the things that can and should be shared (like the vote that started this whole thing off). I really don't understand the resistance that some on the board are putting up to this idea. We're a community founded on the principles of free - as in libre - software. At our absolute CORE, we care about freedom. We care about openness. It's in the project charter.
But the board wants to present itself as a monolithic entity on matters that specifically don't require it.
- Are we going to deal with all the other teams like this as well? I.e.
Are the forums team going 100% transparent? Can all the mod area discussions be anonimized and publised? Same for the other teams?
You know the answer to that, Gertjan. When it comes to moderator actions, there are privacy concerns regarding third parties, particularly when it comes to suspensions. I'm disappointed that you'd go there, honestly, because you know that I have *repeatedly* said "where possible" and "where third party privacy concerns aren't a matter".
So to raise this straw man seems a bit disingenuous, my friend. You're better than that. You know it, and so do I. :)
- FWIW: I'm all for transparency, but not just like that. The process
the board has already started has to be dealt with very carefully, to make sure no one and nothing gets damaged. Like said before: seen too many occasions where this went wrong at the cost of people's reputations, personal life.
Which I have *constantly* advocated for. I wish members of the board would actually HEAR this in what I've been saying, because it's been there all along, yet at least you and Richard (both to my astonishment) have ignored that part of my points and gone for the cheap straw-man argument.
Jim