Re: Status requests for GFDL talks

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako@debian.org>]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:40:47PM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> > I think that this is completely sufficient.  I'm willing to wait
> > while Mako still sees the potential for changes.  We should trust
> > him in this matter, as he's our representative.
> 
> You may be willing to wait, but that doesn't mean it's the right
> thing to do. Trust is tied closely to communication and
> transparency of action.

You're right. There are *lots* of things about the GFDL and the way
we're trying to fix it, that are a lot less than ideal. We tried it in
the fully open "everyone on the mailing list" method and, while we
defined our own position in some very important ways, we also got
ourselves in a slightly worse position in terms of getting the
licensed changed.

> The committee members are in an NDA, a private conversation.

Those two things are not quite the same. I wouldn't have agreed to the
first. I'm not comfortable with the position the second part is
putting me in right now but that's different.

> With little or no communication with the developers-at-large, how do
> you propose to quell the agitation that is felt when there is no
> "apparent" or visible progress.

I've said a little more on -private than I have on -devel. I've said
quite a bit more in private conversations that I have on any lists.

I understand the importance of transparency and I am not comfortable
being a representative of this project and not being as transparent as
I'd like. I'm working to fix this as soon as possible and have reason
to believe it will be relatively soon.

Regards,
Mako


-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako@debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/