1 |
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary |
3 |
> along the lines of "we discussed x and y and decided z" *has* to be |
4 |
> less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work |
5 |
> and considering resignation because of whatever it is the Council are |
6 |
> up to... |
7 |
|
8 |
Except we *did* do that when we first published what we'd done with the |
9 |
CoC. Just because ti didn't have a shiny "Meeting Summary" in the topic |
10 |
doesn't mean it wasn't the outcome of the meeting. You know the topic |
11 |
of discussion. You know the outcome. The details are private. Even |
12 |
you admit that is fine. |
13 |
|
14 |
I mean, all this "the Council is hiding something" conspiracy theory is |
15 |
bullshit. How about when I hang out with Mike Doty and we discuss |
16 |
Gentoo stuff? Is that some super-secret meeting where we're trying to |
17 |
circumvent some supposed requirement for transparency? Of course not... |
18 |
If the individual members of the Council feel like getting together and |
19 |
discussing something, we're perfectly free to do that. We don't have to |
20 |
tell you what we discussed. We're allowed to bounce ideas off each |
21 |
other, especially when discussing things said to us in confidence. I |
22 |
understand that some people disagree with this, but this is a simple |
23 |
fact of life. There are going to be cases where people will say |
24 |
something to someone in confidence and not include everyone in on it. |
25 |
There's nothing we can do about that and there is plenty of precedence |
26 |
for it. When someone asks me not to betray their trust, I won't. |
27 |
That's just how I am. If others feel that their knowing stuff that is |
28 |
honestly insignificant in detail since the end result turned out to be |
29 |
the same and done publicly, well, they're more than welcome to run for |
30 |
Council, themselves, but if they were to divulge such information after |
31 |
being privy to it, disciplinary action would *need* to be taken to |
32 |
retain the trustworthiness of Gentoo as a whole. |
33 |
|
34 |
Now, that being said, we *did* have a *public* meeting about our |
35 |
discussion, and all *decisions* we made were 100% public. I'm sorry if |
36 |
anyone feels like they were slighted by not being included in the |
37 |
discussions prior to the public meeting, but there's nothing anywhere |
38 |
that says that we have to have all of our discussions in public or even |
39 |
made publicly available. We *do* have to have all of our decisions made |
40 |
public, obviously. |
41 |
|
42 |
Personally, I'd just assume make the thing public just to shut people |
43 |
up, but I've really grown to have a stance where I'm less likely to give |
44 |
in to this sort of pressure, since it will do nothing more but prove |
45 |
that being a whiny bitch and trying to pressure people into doing |
46 |
something will get people what they want. I surely don't want to set |
47 |
*that* precedent. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Chris Gianelloni |
51 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
52 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
53 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
54 |
Gentoo Foundation |