On February 10, 2015 2:45:10 AM EST, hellekin <[email protected]> wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA512 > >On 02/09/2015 07:54 PM, André Silva wrote: >> On 02/09/2015 07:30 PM, Nicolás Reynolds wrote: >> >>> ehr... sorry, i pressed the wrong emacs combination :P >> >>> what does everyone think about creating a list for parabola+ceata >>> communications, where everyone can read but only the delegate and >>> ceata can post? this, of course, to provide transparency in our >>> communications, and if someone wants to write any participant they >>> can do so in private, but it won't be an official communication. >> >> >> +1 Good idea! I agree because it provides a transparency >communication >> for us and gives to the community a way to propose our ideas. >> >*** I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to promote "transparent >communication", and I certainly don't think it's relevant to advancing >the issue at this point. If the current proposal is accepted, fauno >will be the delegate, and how this is handled is an implementation >detail. Decision first, then implementation. > >If you insist on implementation, I'm for accountability, not >transparency, and certainly not to "everyone". It's important *for the >community* to be able to access tracking documents, but not for the >public. It's important *for the community* to be able to access >tracking documents *if necessary*, but having random people lurking and >bikeshedding at every step is going to wear out the delegate quite >fast. > Accountability and TOFU. Privacy and freedom. Not transparency and >the tyranny of structurelessness. > >The delegate should come to the community with: > >- - understanding of the need of CEATA >- - a proposal to satisfy that need > >The community should provide the delegate with a clear response: > >- - yes, it's fine >- - yes with patches >- - no > >The delegate should go back to CEATA with: > >- - no, that need cannot be satisfied, but >- - with such and such changes it would work, or >- - yes, let's do it. > >This last step is what needs to be accountable but opaque. The details >of the communication between the delegate and CEATA are irrelevant to >the process that is public otherwise. It's important to have a record >of it, but the role of a delegate is exactly to avoid having many >voices >raised during a conversation. > >More importantly, it's a recipe for disaster. While you give attention >to this, you're not working on your own tasks. The goal is to deliver >a >distro, not to micro-manage the delegate. > >My $0.02 > >== >hk >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v2 > >iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJU2bb+XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w >ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQ0IyNkIyRTNDNzEyMTc2OUEzNEM4ODU0 >ODA2QzM2M0ZDMTg5ODNEAAoJEEgGw2P8GJg9Nq0P/0aYOXFyb+pfWAgwQKwL4vJi >1kwUb5+gLTYU+B5u8CCcBeLSvVQsrfbSiBX5WszcIGp+CtXPY7oftdleFxE6OUzq >eAnYGDoch+nayxEt0SE7PqMysaURfas3PYOeD/j89REIM5yRU6ptKBDB5STznmfD >Prn1axO/KLF3X+zpr2khaxeXrvmr1GrENgDy6DM1s8Hdn5kdpNsZ2zVq3tTg03x0 >gqA9hh1DGR8nhr0K+zbExx69MGVsHkHNBREvuXY5inc7RetkVk0Wq/jCH3kGKuvG >Zqm3RGl7nxzSug/zY6fBhS2eIUIimIhcb4X+0wdbT+stFIZAvRbWkgftp3W0akvL >IfXEU5r5qsdNfyDUbrkj0ZtolKlxJ0CgCB/6iCY5uwbsdAHF5gcES0fyd+ibwvAy >ppnuqSAXAQA1HeHsvCmueGmHqKQ6CQL+EpEvtVLO3dM4mqbsQJkIAAVm72qvNxhc >OYoQgRH4D7yG5Zc67ZI4EOOnmzHkMw5p3OlKpHcnWXP86o9vxyCIsLSfERVOpKhk >qTZYKrN4r9JURw/V81pMkV+D8+tlN4jACB9cA3WNOvzBioyr1y77dRSXcFaEMQFC >5pQIyVD2XjffiX3JPk1viiU1Wjb/r9ytxAlu4zO+WsXz/mh/8AHK361Qy4/vP9BB >e0wB9tWVceX5kjZdSK14 >=n3Wf >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >_______________________________________________ >Dev mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
+1 Hmm, yes, good point.. _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
