Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:31:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > The current wording, read literally, means that if I happened to run into
> > Steve Langasek, say, at a social occasion, I am not permitted to mention
> > network-manager and GNOME to him, because that conversation isn't public
> > and that's an issue currently before the technical committee.
> I would agree that if yours here is the common interpretation of the
> current wording of the Constitution, then we have a problem. (It is not
> *my* reading, but that's meaningless.) I don't think that anyone would
> want to inhibit private discussions to happen at all. But I do think
> people would expect them to be reported ex-post.
I have no problem interpreting "are made public" to mean that a
summary is send to the list.