Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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.
Since I've been the "loudest" on this, I also fully agree with this
perspective. I don't think matters need to be so black and white that
off-list discussions would be disallowed.
Even a summary as simple as "Hey, ____, ____, and I briefly discussed
____ matter at _____ forum, but we didn't really come to any new ideas
or conclusions," would often be enough to satisfy our openness ideals.
Although more substantive summaries should be produced for
discussions that come to real conclusions.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: