Re: [gentoo-project] Hiding problems, breach of Gentoo Social Contract

[Raymond Jennings]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:59:27 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
>
> > I have read this a few times now. I cannot see it being taken any other
> way
> > than written. Nothing states the problems shall remain hidden
> indefinitely.
> >
> > Specifically mentioning BOTH security and developer relations. Meaning
> neither
> > receives special treatment over the other. Neither should be private,
> unless
> > requested to not publicize before a deadline. Implying by default it is
> public
> > including developer relations information. Developer bugs remain
> visible, as
> > are bugs filed to comrel.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that most people around here didn't ever
> bother reading it that carefully?
>
> > The fact that it mentions developer relations information implies that
> those
> > problems should be open and not hidden. That developer relations is also
> > handled via Bugzilla at least in part. That further links developer
> relations
> > problems to the social contract and not hiding problems there.
> >
> > If requests to publicize problems are denied. That seems like a clear
> breach
> > of the Social Contract. I would expect the Foundation to fulfill its
> obligation
> > to protect the community and enforce total adherence to the Gentoo Social
> > Contract.
>
> It sounds like you have succeeded in finding a rule that proves your
> point. Good job. Now, why do you presume that your application is
> correct?
>
> Sure, that might have been the original intent. But that's not how
> comrel has been operating for a long time. It's bad if people haven't
> conformed to the contract but it could entirely have been an oversight.
>
> I see this as a kind of 'dead law'. And now you're trying to abuse it
> to force your point of view, while entirely neglecting the other
> possibility -- to update it to match the long standing status quo.
>

Are we sure that the status quo is in fact correct?

I find it rather dubious, in my humble opinion, to have the "status quo" as
the ultimate standard, in, well, any situation at all, not just gentoo.
Stagnation is bad for any project.

I would far rather compare the status quo to the ideal future, whatever
that may be.  Any deviation between the two could be construed as a defect.

How this applies to this particular situation is left as an exercise for
the reader.  But generally, I don't think "status quo" is a reasonable
standard in any situation.  It only works well as a default in my opinion.

That said, I don't mind publicizing comrel bugs -- if you get all
> the parties to agree on it. If you file a comrel bug, you do so with
> presumption that it will be kept classified. It's not fair to
> unclassify it without getting the consent of both the accusing party
> and the accused.
>

This is why I asked whose privacy in particular would be put in jeopardy by
such revelations in general.

--
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
>