On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Being a member-based organization the ASF requires > that all foundation activities be subject to member > scrutiny (with only a handful of operational exceptions). > > I would be perfectly satisfied if the private forums > are fully archived and made available to any ASF member on > request, without undue delay. >
And to all PPMC members as well. -Rob > > > >>________________________________ >>From: Simon Phipps <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 11:14 AM >>Subject: Re: Dissatisfaction amongst the community admins, moderators and >>volunteers >> >>On Sep 4, 2011 3:45 PM, "Rob Weir" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't think discussions about how the project is run is something >>> that we should be doing in private. Discussing such matters, even if >>> strong opinions are raised, is the essence of transparency. Remember, >>> controversial is not the same as confidential. In Apache projects we >>> discuss non-confidential matters openly. >> >>... unless they are on the PPMC private list, when that royal "we" no longer >>includes everyone here. I believe Terry and others are saying that the >>(independent) forum community has a similar approach, with a private forum >>for sensitive matters. I also believe that in the interests of that very >>transparency you and others are invited to participate in that place as a >>transitional activity. >> >>What exactly is the problem here? >> >>S. >> >> >>
