[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion"):
>> Just to clarify, that is not my perspective.  Like I said in the
>> following sentence,
>>   The importance of a more stringent wording (I think) is to make it clear to
>>   project members that the committee will only be using this power in the
>>   most sensitive of situations, rather than all the time.
> I think the key difference between us is this: you seem to be arguing
> that the wording discouraging or limiting the TC's private
> conversations should be normative - that is, that the text should
> somehow say that under some vaguely specified situations, the TC would
> be actually forbidden from having the conversation in private.

Not really. My point is that any such change should maximally support
the ideals the project has set for itself in the Social Contract (i.e.
bullet 3).

> Whereas I think that this text should be in <cite> - ie it should be
> rationale and explanation, but not grounds for anyone to assert that
> the TC had somehow violated the constitution and therefore that a
> decision was invalid, or something.

Having the wording grant explicit permission to take a discussion
private seems like it would be sufficient to guard against that type
of complaint.

> My suggestion was this:
>         [+<cite>The Technical Committee is encouraged to
>         hold discussions in public where feasible.</cite>+]
> But I'm happy to see a stronger wording:
>         [+<cite>The Technical Committee should limit private
>         discussions to situations where holding the conversation in
>         public would be infeasible or unconstructive.</cite>+]

I think this wording is still lacking in idealization.  It needs some
kind of humility; acknowledging that private discussions are a
compromise that the committee is making only to protect human
emotions/feelings and other very sensitive matters, and in the
majority of cases are to be avoided.

I don't think infeasible or unconstructive are the best qualifiers.
Unconstructive discussions are not necessarily bad since they can
easily be ignored.  I'm hard pressed to come up with an infeasible
case (except perhaps when one does not have the ability to send mail
over the internet).

Best wishes,

Reply to: