Hi Charles.
With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence
above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake.
There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_
required, is there not?
For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as
the rest of us.
Sincerely,
Drew Jensen
Hi Drew,
While there's a list for confidential matters we intend and want to have a
dexision making process that's transparent. This list was designed with the
notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD
members, etc.) and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. My
opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions
would be lost in endless threads, not followed by developers and in a few
weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision
making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid
distraction and create a more solemn / official list.
Best,
Charles.
Hi,
This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been
setup
to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it
accomodates SC members & requests from project members. While we do
appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on
other
lists.
Hi Charles.
With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence
above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake.There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_
required, is there not?For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as
the rest of us.Sincerely,
Drew Jensen
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
Hi Drew,
While there's a list for confidential matters
and it would be good to:
1- Disclose _all_ private lists used by TDF, along with who in the
community is on those lists. To do otherwise is to have both private and
secret lists.
2 - Disclose what is being discussed and what decisions are being made
on private lists, this can be done in a way that retains enough specific
detail to keep confidences, while being open and transparent to the
community at large.
we intend and want to have a
dexision making process that's transparent.
Weekly public SC meetings, already in place.
This list was designed with the
notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD
members, etc.)
Nothing there requires a separate list.
and a communication tool for important an urgent matters.
You have each others email addresses and indeed email/contact
information for SC members is public.
You have an official announcement list, blog, facebook and twitter
accounts for urgent messages to the community.
My
opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions
would be lost in endless threads,
Meaning you would have to live with it, just like the rest of us.
not followed by developers
If they are not interested then why make them watch.
and in a few
weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision
making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid
distraction and create a more solemn / official list.
Well, that reads to me as - if the SC where forced to use only the tools
the rest of us are stuck using, it would find it bothersome and
distracting to the point that people wold either stop contributing or
start doing things in private to avoid the distractions.
Respectfully,
Drew Jensen
Hi,
I find this list to be a very useful point of contact with the SC. If
people avoid using it for other purposes than discussions in which
there is a genuine utility in involving the SC then SC members will be
encouraged to read it regularly and properly, and the list will indeed
serve its true purpose.
I fully agree with Drew.
Maintaining closed lists is a (bad) behavior from the times of
OpenOffice.org and should be abandoned if you want to have a good and clear
relationship with the community as a whole. Closed lists caused a lot of
problems and distrust in brazillian community. Actually we have no hidden
lists anymore. Particular or urgent matters are threated through direct
e-mails or Gtalk contacts.
Cheers!
Hello,
let me jump in quickly with a few thoughts:
- The set-up of this list was discussed in one of last year's steering commitee public conference calls, and if I remember correctly, it was even a demand by the community, not by the steering committee. (Which does not mean we do not consider it a good idea.)
- The purpose of this list is for the steering committee to discuss on topics. Others of course can jump in, but let's not forget we have a discuss mailing list that serves what it's name has: discussion. So, the topics on this list indeed should *only* be related to things concerning steering committee decisions. Traffic on this list should be kept rather low, main discussions should take place on the discuss list. I myself will try to follow that idea better in the future, I've also swamped the steering-discuss list with topics that would have belonged to a different list.
- Yes, there is a private list, and there are private calls. This has not been kept in secret, we've stated that several times at various places. We try to discuss as many things in public as possible, and our bylaws also have that we make private items public when possible.
One recent example for that is the letter of intent we sent regarding OpenOffice.org. During that discussion, it was crucial to not have it public - especially when dealing with corporations, there are of course topics that are to be kept confidential. I hope it is obvious to everyone why we could not discuss some internals of the things happening at OpenOffice.org in public. It was simply not possible, and if we hadn't have a chance to discuss it in private, we would have been forcd to keep out of it totally, which is not ideal. When the discussion phase has ended, we made the letter public, so everyone could read the contents.
So, please, everyone, calm down a bit. What Charles tried to say is that we should keep the focus of this list, and move other discussions on their appropriate list, e.g. discuss@tdf.
I agree that having a private list is always connected to some bad feelings, but I hope you see there are justified reasons for having that. Again, we discuss anything in public that is possible, and the topics that are discussed in private will be made public afterwards if that is feasible.
Nothing on our principle of transparency, openness and meritocracy has changed. I give you my word on that.
Florian
Hello,
Hello,
let me jump in quickly with a few thoughts:
- The set-up of this list was discussed in one of last year's steering
commitee public conference calls, and if I remember correctly, it was even a
demand by the community, not by the steering committee. (Which does not mean
we do not consider it a good idea.)- The purpose of this list is for the steering committee to discuss on
topics. Others of course can jump in, but let's not forget we have a discuss
mailing list that serves what it's name has: discussion. So, the topics on
this list indeed should *only* be related to things concerning steering
committee decisions. Traffic on this list should be kept rather low, main
discussions should take place on the discuss list. I myself will try to
follow that idea better in the future, I've also swamped the
steering-discuss list with topics that would have belonged to a different
list.- Yes, there is a private list, and there are private calls. This has not
been kept in secret, we've stated that several times at various places. We
try to discuss as many things in public as possible, and our bylaws also
have that we make private items public when possible.One recent example for that is the letter of intent we sent regarding
OpenOffice.org. During that discussion, it was crucial to not have it public
- especially when dealing with corporations, there are of course topics that
are to be kept confidential. I hope it is obvious to everyone why we could
not discuss some internals of the things happening at OpenOffice.org in
public. It was simply not possible, and if we hadn't have a chance to
discuss it in private, we would have been forcd to keep out of it totally,
which is not ideal. When the discussion phase has ended, we made the letter
public, so everyone could read the contents.So, please, everyone, calm down a bit. What Charles tried to say is that we
should keep the focus of this list, and move other discussions on their
appropriate list, e.g. discuss@tdf.I agree that having a private list is always connected to some bad
feelings, but I hope you see there are justified reasons for having that.
Again, we discuss anything in public that is possible, and the topics that
are discussed in private will be made public afterwards if that is feasible.Nothing on our principle of transparency, openness and meritocracy has
changed. I give you my word on that.Florian
To second Florian's point about the private list, and to answer Drew's
requests, it is actually rather simple. There is no decision by principle
taken privately on the private mailing list. In fact the steering-discuss
list is where decisions are being taken (there is no "rest of us" here,
Drew, because I'm on the discuss@ list as well, and I have a strong feeling
against using that list for SC/BoD discussion.) Private communications
happen in two cases: there's a need for confidentiality in legal terms or
one of us wishes to switch to a more informal mode because he/she cannot
discuss his / her point clearly without feeling uncomfortable in public.
However, note that we have a rule inside our bylaws that's rather clear
about transparency and disclosure: if we have a decision that needs to be
taken care of in confidentiality we must disclose it after a specific period
of time. Hence the case with our letter of intent to Oracle. I must reassure
everyone here we don't write such letters every month, very far from that 
Last but not least the use of one private list exists in every FOSS project;
and LibreOffice, just like every other project, does make use of it,
however, we make sure that the decision making process does not happen
there.
Best,
Charles.
Hello guys.
I do agree to what Charles said, but I have some things to say on that:
There should have a public note, somewhere, explaining that private lists do
exist and showing the requirements for a member to be accepted in those
lists. What I think is doubtful is maintaining hidden lists. Note: In my
view, *private* lists are different from *hidden* lists.
Cheers.
Hi,
I do agree to what Charles said, but I have some things to say on that:
There should have a public note, somewhere, explaining that private lists do
exist and showing the requirements for a member to be accepted in those
lists. What I think is doubtful is maintaining hidden lists. Note: In my
view,*private* lists are different from*hidden* lists.
I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a private list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there are private phone calls sometimes.
We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression has grown.
Florian
Hi Florian,
I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a private
list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there are
private phone calls sometimes.We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression has
grown.
Perhaps it would be good to list the private mailing lists existing,
so that interested people can send a request to a relevant human being
for a subscription. Otherwise, some people might never learn that they
even exist.
After discussion threads on private MLs and after private calls held
by the SC and/or relevant project teams (such as the sysadmins),
perhaps it might be a solution to publish an advisory on the
tdf-discuss list explaining as much as possible about the subject of
the call/thread, and as much as possible about the results of the
discussions? That way, at least people would be informed that they
have taken place, rather than the community possible being totally
unaware of such communication.
Hi,
<snip>
I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a
private list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there
are private phone calls sometimes.We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression has
grown.Florian
Hi Florian,
I understand that. My feeling is that things are becoming clearer and
clearer, and this discussion is very healthy =)
I'm not saying that there are things done in secret. I am just trying to say
that, if some privacy is needed (and I do agree with that), at least the
access to the private discussions should have some rules. First to give
access to the issue's stakeholders. Second to remain private despite the
free access for stakeholders. Maybe access should be given for a limited
time, based in threads, or whatever. I'm not sure if I'm making myself
clear, am I?
Sorry, if not. =)
Hello David,
Afaict I list the following ones:
SC private
AB private
Web infrastructure
Security
Marketing private (for pr drafting and readiness)
As I am personally not subscribed to all of them I might have missed one or
taken one as private while it is public.
Best,
Charles.
Hi Florian,
I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a
private
list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there are
private phone calls sometimes.We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression
has
grown.
Perhaps it would be good to list the private mailing lists existing,
so that interested people can send a request to a relevant human being
for a subscription. Otherwise, some people might never learn that they
even exist.After discussion threads on private MLs and after private calls held
by the SC and/or relevant project teams (such as the sysadmins),
perhaps it might be a solution to publish an advisory on the
tdf-discuss list explaining as much as possible about the subject of
the call/thread, and as much as possible about the results of the
discussions? That way, at least people would be informed that they
have taken place, rather than the community possible being totally
unaware of such communication.--
David Nelson--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems?
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive:
http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted
Hi Florian,
> I think it has been discussed in public rather often that there is a
private
> list where all the steering committee members are on, and that there are
> private phone calls sometimes.
>
> We never planned to have things in secret, so sorry if that impression
has
> grown.Perhaps it would be good to list the private mailing lists existing,
so that interested people can send a request to a relevant human being
for a subscription. Otherwise, some people might never learn that they
even exist.After discussion threads on private MLs and after private calls held
by the SC and/or relevant project teams (such as the sysadmins),
perhaps it might be a solution to publish an advisory on the
tdf-discuss list explaining as much as possible about the subject of
the call/thread, and as much as possible about the results of the
discussions? That way, at least people would be informed that they
have taken place, rather than the community possible being totally
unaware of such communication.
I don't see any problems in private mailing lists if they are listed
somewhere and the rules to be included in them are public, fair and clear.
--
David Nelson
Cheers
Hi
+1
Also, allowing threads (such as the one about job-description for marketing
contacts) to split out to other, more relevant, lists is great and seems to be
working fine.
It's inevitable that discussions take place all over the place because there is
a lot of energy and excitement in TDF and about LibreOffice. Inevitably that is
going to "ruffle some feathers" but it's not necessarily a bad thing. This sort
of discussion to un-ruffle accidental issues usually goes well here too. It's
fairly clear there is no deliberate hiding going on and clearly no-one here has
bad intentions.
Regards from
Tom
Hi,
yep, your list is correct. Some details:
SC private
Contains of steering committee plus deputies, plus a few people who have been involved in the discussion of setting up a foundation, even before TDF was born. Recipient list should be re-defined by the new board of directors then, it's their decision who should stay on the list and who shouldn't.
AB private
Contains advisory board representatives, plus all the steering committee members and deputies.
Web infrastructure
Contains all the administrators (everyone who has root access, that is).
Security
Contains LibreOffice developers, and representatives of various distributions.
Marketing private (for pr drafting and readiness)
Currently has a list of local team representatives, we're right in the process of setting up a marketing network to determine/add recipients.
I would not propose to add these lists to our main mailing list page - I am not too keen of revealing the URLs and aliases, even if they are password protected. However, if someone wants to add the lists to a wiki page, feel free to do so.
Hope that helps,
Florian
Hi,
yep, your list is correct.
Is it exhaustive?
Tanks,
Drew
Hi,
Is it exhaustive?
I just checked the mailing list system. There still is the conference jury mailing list, where all paper submissions are being sent to. Everyone had a chance to join the jury, we made a public call. Jury discussions are not meant to be a secret, but I doubt speakers would like to have their proposals immediately public, as they might contain private data.
Then we have some more technical aliases, like for blog notifications, wiki messages, donations notifications, Twitter and identi.ca, as well as IRC, but they are all no mailing lists, just mail aliases for technical messages.
In addition, there's an alias for the info@ address (SC+deputies), plus for the legal@ address (SC+deputies).
What was missing from the list is the internal discussion list of the membership committee, where the members of the membership committee are on.
That's it.
Florian
Hi,
> Is it exhaustive?
I just checked the mailing list system. There still is the conference
jury mailing list, where all paper submissions are being sent to.
Everyone had a chance to join the jury, we made a public call. Jury
discussions are not meant to be a secret, but I doubt speakers would
like to have their proposals immediately public, as they might contain
private data.
Paulo alluded to this type - situational, or what I call one-off,
one-time, use.
<snip>
What was missing from the list is the internal discussion list of the
membership committee, where the members of the membership committee are on.
Right - that was one other that came to my mind, wasn't sure though.
Alright - referring to another email, since I poked the nest I'll take
the task of creating a wiki page - no URLs.
Best wishes,
//drew
Thank you Drew.
Best,
Charles.
+1