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