On Thu, 2020-12-10 at 08:26 +0000, Adrien Glauser wrote:
I think that as far as communities of passionate people are concerned, trust and fulfilment should naturally flow from healthy human interactions. Trying to reconstruct them on the back of more abstractions and automated mechanisms can at most, as I as it, treat symptoms.
All for better Rules, though. I'll come back with a concrete proposal later this week.
I'd like to echo Simon's concerns. I'd also be concerned regarding any rule that seeks to limit the freedom of any contributor to speak about any concerns they have for the Project on any platform - especially any platform the Project doesn't control. If other issues outweigh that concern however and the community wants to go in that direction, I'd also question the health of applying such a restriction to only ex Board members. After all, I certainly would have wanted to consider such long term implications before volunteering to be a Board member all those years ago. I probably would have never volunteered for any governance role that would censor my ability to comment on Project governance in perpetuity. Plus, we have lots of influential contributors who have gained that influence by other means than Board membership. I do not think we should make a situation where the majority of the Project have unfettered freedom to engage during the election period but former Board members (who actually know how the Project currently works) can not.