| 1 |
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:05:30 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and |
| 7 |
> > Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information. |
| 8 |
> > What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can |
| 9 |
> > reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it |
| 10 |
> > unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other |
| 11 |
> > participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications |
| 12 |
> > public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary |
| 15 |
> secrecy, serves the goals: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing |
| 18 |
> their secrets, |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> 2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public |
| 21 |
> stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice |
| 24 |
> tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice. |
| 25 |
> Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now, |
| 26 |
> Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Making everything public ensures no secrets. Privacy and secrecy should not |
| 29 |
exist or be needed for a public open source project. With the only exception |
| 30 |
being security vulnerabilities for obvious reason. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Any event being handled likely started in public to begin with, thus should |
| 33 |
remain that way for 100% transparency. Also to ensure no problems with leaking |
| 34 |
or making private/secret information public. Solves many problems. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives