On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck <m...@marcusbuck.org> wrote: > What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in > your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing > lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to > object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to > understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency. > Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on > purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal > reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all > topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists.
Pretty much. (Most recent exception was personal congratulations on the birth of a child.) There's a principle that anything that doesn't need to be confidential should go to foundation-l as well. (Some people read internal-l but not foundation-l.) >I don't > know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have > not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is > a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and > transparent. +1 Gerard has offered *no* substantive reason the language committee list needs such provisions, and instead has offered spurious counter-attacks and claimed it's an attempt to push people off for "opportunistic reasons". It's not. Gerard, it's asking you why on earth you need a secrecy provision no-one else has, and for you - or anyone else on the language committee - to explain precisely why this is required, and why it should be allowed to stand. Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
