On 16-05-20 01:01 AM, David Lang wrote: > 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. >
I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was), just as an area for improvement. Certainly I agree there *are* things that shouldn't be on public channels, because it does more harm than good, I'm just saying that it looks like there is still a lot of stuff going in 'in the background' that *isnt' transparent* AND transparency is *stated goal*. Does that mean I think it's deliberate hiding - hell no, I just don't think they've fully got the hang of transparency yet. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
