On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > Possibly it's just my personal bugbear, but my concern with sending traffic > to a list that doesn't feel empowered to act on it is that it often ends up > in discussion with very little decision making.
To my mind, the problem that needs solving is that the catch-all forum for discussing Foundation-wide policy -- members@apache -- is private. Foundation-wide policy ought to be discussed by default on *public* lists unless there is a compelling reason that the conversation must remain confidential. First, making such debates available to the general public is consistent with the Foundation's mission[1]. The Members care for the Foundation, but they are not its only stakeholders. Second, it is important for practical reasons to capture deliberations in the public record where they may be referenced in subsequent conversations. As has been shown by recent controversy on legal-discuss@apache over what diligence is required before casting a +1 vote, disputes often arise as to the original meaning of our policies. If the crafting of the policy takes place behind closed doors and the rationales behind its drafting are concealed in private archives, that hinders the ability of those who must interact with the policy to reason about it or comply with it. It is akin to denying judges the capacity to reference legislative intent when applying the law. Third, members@apache has multiple defects as a policy-making venue. Like many private lists, it is a hostile place where participants often say things they would be ashamed to have exposed to a wider world. Additionally, participation is mandatory for Members, not all of whom relish wrangling over policy. We have used dev@community before as a venue for policy debates. In the absence of a viable public catch-all alternative, I object to ruling it out for such use in the future. Marvin Humphrey [1] If this argument sounds familiar to some of you, that's because I made it a week ago on a certain private forum. Unfortunately, I can't link to that thread or reveal any details to provide context.