Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
Michael Gilbert <email@example.com> writes:
> So, I had though these changes originated from the recent python
> maintainership conflict, and that was basically confirmed by the bof
> discussion. The primary motivation for private discussion stated there
> was to be able to preempt potential flamewars (like the python
There have been several other (significant) issues besides the Python
maintainership conflict where people have contacted the Technical
Committee in private. I think you're drawing somewhat unwarranted
> Flamewars are a kind of social problem, and historically the tech
> committee has been very reserved about intervening in those
The goal here is not to intervene in a flamewar; the goal is to be able to
get involved *before* there's a flamewar and try to resolve the underlying
issue before it escalates into a personality conflict.
Please don't confuse this with the separate question of whether the
tech-ctte should get more involved in social issues. This is an
independent question. The ability to raise an initial question in private
is valuable for technical conflicts with a social component, where the
person raising the technical conflict is concerned that just opening a bug
against tech-ctte will come across as immediate escalation. It can be
very useful to get a sanity check of one's reasoning before taking that
step, as well as assistance in how to word a proposal to be less
confrontational, and that's one of the places where I think this option
will be used.
> So, anyway, after all of that, I would actually rather see this GR go in
> the opposite direction and instead uphold the ideal of full transparency
> in all works of the tech committee. I am not naive enough to believe in
> this cabal idea, but enforcement of transparency eliminates the ability
> for project members to even start jumping at the perception that there
> is one.
If you're a Debian Developer (I forget off-hand if you are), you could
certainly propose that. For the record, I'm strongly opposed, for all the
reasons previously stated in this discussion.
> Anyway, I think it would be quite disappointing to alter our ideals
> simply due to a very small minority of developers exhibiting
> counter-productive behavior.
I completely disagree that this proposal constitutes anything of the sort.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>