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

[Zak Greant]

Hi Chris, Greetings All,

On 11/26/07, Chris Travers <chris.travers at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> 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.

I'd prefer to have one list with public archives. The editors deal
with publicly posted information and don't offer opinions on it. Their
need to have private discussions should be quite limited.

If there is a need for privacy, then a Cc list should be sufficient
(and sufficiently inconvenient enough to discourage casual use.)

> 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

If the editors are triaging the issue, then it is public already.

If someone sends a private message, the editors tell the person to
post it publicly.

> 2)  A need for secrecy in settling disputes between core team members

Private email can suffice for this.

> (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.


-- 
Cheers!
--zak