Michael Gilbert <mgilb...@debian.org> writes: > I feel like this wording comes across as sacrificing too much in the > openness/transparency of the tech committee's discussions. Perhaps > something along the following would be better?
We went back and forth on this in IRC a little bit. The difficulty is that unless you're going to delegate to some other entity the ability to decide when the TC can hold private discussions (which I don't think would be very practical), the TC itself ends up deciding when it's appropriate. Therefore, any way you cut it, you have to trust the TC to lean towards openness if we allow private discussion, and it's not clear to me that putting more stringency around that will make much difference. Either the TC will be public by default or it won't, and if it isn't, I'm not sure that the wording beyond some encouragement in that direction is going to make a lot of difference. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d344emvi....@windlord.stanford.edu
