On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 06:47:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > Agreed, but would you agree that it is a core part of the role of the > DPL/2IC, or indeed any mediator, to provide at least basic status and > progress info to the project as a whole? > > What we've been seeing with this issue is that there has been complete > silence for over three months. I think that a lot of the (heated) public > discussion could have avoided if some progress/status info would have been > provided at regular intervals. In fact, I think that a lot of the public > discussion was as direct result of the total lack of such information. > > What are the thoughts of candidates on that? > > Also, it has been claimed "we cannot provide any information because > discussions are in private" [1]. Do candidates agree to that, or do they > think that a DPL should make clear to parties in advance that the project > will be kept informed of status and progress (but of course not of > specifics). That all makes sense, in principle, and if the subject is important enough and the mediation takes a non-neglible amount of time, then we should strive for such status reports. However, I can see how such status reports could consist of nothing more than "we're working on resolving personal issues now" for a while, and that could irk some people the wrong way; it is not unthinkable that they'd then start complaining about that, which would also not be very helpful. -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature