Hi Pierre-Elliott, Am 11.04.21 um 14:27 schrieb Pierre-Elliott Bécue:
Those who insist on making the personal views on this (non-technical!!!) GR public should be ashamed of dragging their fellows into denuding themselves for no good reason.I am really worried that someone could say that holding to our values, respecting our processes and avoiding to create potentially indesirable precedents is "no good reason" and grounds to be ashamed.
I haven't seen anybody suggesting to violate our processes or alike. What I've seen is a request to make use of 5.1(3) of our constitution, but I consider that a (granted, rarely used) part of our processes.
What I see is a tension between our social contract and our code of conduct. The social contract paragraph three ("We will not hide problems") talks about doing our business in public, yet refers to our bug reports. On the other hand our code of conduct paragraph five ("Be open") clarifies that public methods of communication are preferred, "unless posting something sensitive." Reading the many mails on this context let me think that we have a rough consensus to consider the RMS GR results something sensitive. So, I consider the publication of the vote results for this GR a violation of our code of conduct...
We haven't been in such a situation before (e.g. I am not aware of any previous GR about personal related issues), so I think we as a project need to find a balance for handling such situations in the future. Long term to me this could mean to change our constitution, e.g. allowing secret votes also for non leader votes in the future. Yet this doesn't help in the current situation.
Pierre-Elliott, given the current social contract and the code of conduct, would you mind to elaborate a bit how you see our processes violated by letting the current leader make use of our constitution 5.1(3) to publish the RMS GR results as an anonymized tally sheet like in our yearly leader elections?
Regards, Micha