On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 13:51:56 -0400 > Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Just so I am perfectly clear. There should be two kinds of project >> discussions: >> >> 1) Those that are in public >> >> and >> >> 2) Those that are in private because they deal with matters that are >> sensitive, such as handling of confidential information >> >> There is no third category of: "Discussions behind the scene are not >> proposals; they emerge into one or more consensuses" Discussions like >> that need to start happening in public, just like the discussions we >> are having right now are in public. We don't reach consensus and then >> do a perfunctory post of a proposal, fait accompli. That is not >> transparency. From beginning to end we discuss in public. > > Do you never walk to the water cooler and float something by someone else, as > a preparatory stage in working out yuour thoughts? >
That would be permitted. Ditto for private email exchanges, chat sessions, etc. But we're not going to conduct ordinarily, non-confidential project business on a private list with 70+ subscribers. That is a cabal, not a water cooler conversation. > > -- > Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> >
