Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Brett,

Am 06.09.2020 um 04:48 schrieb Brett Cornwall:
On 2020-09-05 18:53, Dennis Roczek wrote:
Am 05.09.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Dennis Roczek:
* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
  be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
Most internal discussions are about improving the tools or about
concrete applications. The discussion about applications should NOT be
public. Discussions about how the tools should or could be improved
(e.g. dashboard) can be opened without any problems.

I missed to add a reason why the discussion about the application should
not be published: see our disaster with the mascot: if we make
everything in public the members of the MC might get spammed, pushed,
and bullied.

The mascot incident is a great example of why public involvement
matters! The lessons learned should not be "make everything more
closed-door" but "What can we learn from disappointing our
users/community?" Users were angry and hurt for a reason and brought
very valid concerns to a very flawed event.
I guess we talking side by side.
Of course, the whole incident would have need more transparency. I was
talking about the bullying and spamming afterwards. To compare this now
to the MC: if the members of the MC vote in public, they can be
influenced by the crowd. Plus we are talking about sensible data: from
names, mail addresses and reasons why we renew (well or not) a
membership. And we have cases were we do need private data which should
not public.

There is contrast also Wikipedia which is public voting about potential
admins. It is called in the English Wikipedia as "Hell Week", because
some guys go back to the earliest edits of somebody searching for
something bad in your 10 years editing carree. It is really not a nice
system. The community raised the bar for new admins to something crazy
in the meantime!

I have anecdata: A high-profile "rockstar" developer applied to be an
Arch Linux TU last year [1] and we received colorful remarks from the
peanut gallery. Contention and disappointment was voiced with our
questions and handling, and the applicant ultimately withdrew but the
discourse was not toxic. In fact, I'd say that the comments from the
general public provoke reflection - even if I do not agree with them.
Luckily for Arch! I do know Wikipedia which is the other way round.

I lean toward making applications public (GDPR concerns put aside).
Me, too! But GDPR is the atomic argument to stop the discussion here.

a pragmatic perspective, private list mails can easily be leaked the
moment contention bubbles up. My Debian outsider perspective sees
private lists as good for promoting their issue with political drama and
causes sites like [2] to sprout up. I'm not qualified for much more than
speculation; I'd love to hear the opinions of the more experienced. I'd
be curious to know how other communities like Debian or Fedora manage
applications and whether public/private have been helpful.

I'm happy if we (as a community) can improve the situation as much as
possible. OTOH I do not believe that we have any problem in the
membership process except that we should try to get more members into
the game.

I cannot remember that we had any problems in the past that somebody got
the membership although didn't meet the criteria (or the other way
round), nor that somebody were against any decision. Most users act with
their plain name, or well known account names. You will not find
anything which was not correct.

Please let us focus on the real problems and let us improve the projects
and community.

Best regards,

Dennis Roczek

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.