On Thu, 19 May 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others,
impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email
that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to
the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think
it's just trivial or trying to hash things out? Then yes, I think there
is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about
transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working
style.
You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts
and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do
transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of
thing one might wish were not on the record.
regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind
of serious discussion should be the open mailing list.
- as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the
whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about
non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it.
- alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs
to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem.
probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place.
Exactly. It seems like there is still a lot of back channel talk that
is not public.
Guys, give them a little time to transition here.
Not all conversations should be public.
does the concept of "don't play with matches in a powder magazine" make sense?
negotiations and discussions of blame/hurt feelings don't work well if there is
a large crowd of hecklers around. They (both LEDE and OpenWRT folks) need to be
able to meet and discuss history and the effects that it will have going forward
without people second guessing every move and parsing every word for hidden
meanings.
The LEDE folks flubbed the announcemnt, but that was only a couple weeks ago.
These are people working on this part-time, they have families and jobs to deal
with. It is going to take them time to figure out what and how to change and
communicate the details between them.
Would you really like it if they started announcing changes, only to have other
LEDE folks contradict them?
Focus on Code and Tools, you know, technical stuff. Let them have a little
breathing room to figure out the governence stuff.
Watch what's changing, make suggestions, sure. But tone down the demands and
criticism until they actually show that they aren't willing to change. So far
they've seemed very willing to tweak things in response to suggestions.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
