| 1 |
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:46:31 PM EST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> So, here is the problem with trying to have a conversation like this |
| 4 |
> in public. I can't even confirm or deny whether you have been the |
| 5 |
> subject of a comrel action or appeal. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
You should be doing EVERYTHING in public... You represent the public interest |
| 8 |
and a public community based on open source concepts. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> If I knew you were given an example of a situation where you had |
| 11 |
> violated the CoC, I couldn't point that out either, nor could I cite |
| 12 |
> situations where this very matter was discussed, were that to have |
| 13 |
> happened. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That is absolutely absurd. Gentoo does not have any NDA that you have signed |
| 16 |
and are legally bound to. This cloak of secrecy is of concern and should not |
| 17 |
exist. It need not exist. How many times does it need be said that nothing |
| 18 |
regarding Gentoo should be confidential. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If there are legal reasons to keep matters private that is one thing. But I |
| 21 |
think more legal arguments would support it being made public. Not to mention |
| 22 |
potential liability keeping information in private while taking action in |
| 23 |
public. Essentially defaming people. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Either release all details in their entirety. Or refrain from any action. |
| 26 |
Doing anything otherwise for a public project based around open source |
| 27 |
software is essentially censorship. Denying freedom of information. That is a |
| 28 |
horrible precedence to set for a open community.... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
If Gentoo has no tolerance for proprietary software, it should be the same for |
| 31 |
keeping information from the public. Regarding any matter other than security. |
| 32 |
Even security should not be confidential once a fix is available. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives