On 2018-08-27 01:54, Basil Chupin wrote:
On 27/08/18 07:39, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
- Knurpht-openSUSE firstname.lastname@example.org [08-26-18 16:57]:
I am open for discussion, Per. But I don't believe in total transparency where names are involved f.e. or details of conflicts are revealed.
it is about where you or the individual stands on the issues, not about "conflicts" which should not happen. differences of opinion are expected and needed to resolve issues, that they be understood.
I would definitely want to know how one voted as I may have an opinion about particular issue and want to vote for someone who follows what I expect. how else can one determine who they want to represent them?
I agree with what you say.
I also would like to add a thought which only now just occurred to me -- you'll see why I say this in a minute.
Over the years I have been on many committees, more like 'boards' if you like, and on one I was the Secretary with one my responsibilities, of course, was to produce the detailed Minutes of the 'board's' ordinary and extraordinary meetings.
The Minutes naturally contained the usual words of "Motion passed unanimously" or "Passed by majority votes" or similar wording. After the Minutes were written-up they were circulated as a draft to all 'board' members for correction/addition/approval before I produced the final version to be adopted as the official record of the meeting at the next meeting of the 'board'.
The thought which only just now occurred to me is: while the Minutes may have stated that some Motion was approved by a majority of 'board' members there was never a list of who voted for or against the Motion. It just never occurred to anyone to have such a list included in the Minutes.
Alright, when you think about it doing so would become a tedious task -- but there is a very simple solution to this. The draft Minutes are circulated to each Member for correction/etc before being finalised so during this editing stage the member(s) who voted AGAINST a motion adds his/her name(s) stating "Voted Against: Joe Doe, Mary Contrary,...". Since the members present at that meeting are always listed at the beginning of the Minutes it becomes clear by elimination who voted FOR the motion.
Nice, I like it :-)
It would be up to the dissenting member to say something or not.
This would produce the transparency which you, Patrick, and, I will add, also other Community members, is requesting in what you wrote above.
it appears embarassment and or blame are being considered and they should never enter into the process.
This should be considered as self-evident.