| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Robbins <drobbins@××××××.org> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Ironically, being open and responsive to tinfoil-esque comments actually |
| 7 |
> > will do a great deal to dispel tinfoil-esque paranoia going forward. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> While that seems like a reasonable hypothesis, I fear that it isn't |
| 11 |
> well-established with data. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> In any case I support being open just to be open, and so far the |
| 14 |
> people who have been in dual-roles have chosen to recuse themselves, |
| 15 |
> so this seems mostly like a hypothetical argument. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Cool. Regarding the specific wording of William's patch to GLEP 39, I would |
| 19 |
suggest possibly softening the wording of "will be removed" and just state |
| 20 |
that they can only serve in one capacity. Sounds a bit violent currently :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'd prefer an option to opt out rather than a mandatory stepping down, but |
| 23 |
I am not outright opposed to it. I have no gory details of naughty things |
| 24 |
guiding my viewpoint, just trusting that if WilliamH has concerns, others |
| 25 |
probably do too. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
And yes, I know that it is not my decision to make. Just sharing my |
| 28 |
perspective. I figure that's worth saying every now and then. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-Daniel |
Archives