public? Re: Call for Votes: New OSI-Editors List

[Chris Travers]

First, please make everything public to the greatest extent possible.
Secrecy, while sometimes necessary, can easily creep to the point
where it harms the community.  I have learned this lesson partly by
experience and partly by observation.

In realistic terms, this probably means that there is a separate list
without public archives, while most deliberations take place on a
public list.  This could mean expanding this list's charter to cover
the topics of the other list as well and encouraging the other list
members to discuss most things on this list, or it could mean the
creation of 2 additional lists.

The major reasons for secrecy in open source code projects generally include:
1)  A need for secrecy in dealing with security issues to avoid
putting users at undue risk
2)  A need for secrecy in settling disputes between core team members
(so that the core team can fight hard behind closed doors and come to
consensus without unduly politicizing the disputes).

In this case, if there are issues whose public discussion could put
OSI in legal jeopardy or if there are needs for closed-door sessions
to resolve easily politicized issues, those should be on a closed
list.  But everything else should be open.  Assuming we want the OSI
to be an open organization.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers