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dashboard) can be opened without any problems.I missed to add a reason why the discussion about the application should not be published: see our disaster with the mascot: if we make everything in public the members of the MC might get spammed, pushed, and bullied.The mascot incident is a great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  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.
From 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  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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature