David wrote: > The degree of openness and transparency is our fundamental > disagreement. Best case is that the status quo works, Sugar Labs > thrives, and I am proven wrong. Worst case is that Sugar adopts to > the changing environment.
I haven't been able to parse this in a way that gives me confidence that I comprehend it. Assessing the degree of openness and transparency is very difficult, because it depends on the monitoring of communication, and there are communications that are private. The social network also contains nodes that are hidden. Some of the communication links are hidden. Some links are by broadcast. I think this will always be so. It is how humans organise their networks; ad-hoc and badly. It is why governance systems are implemented. I speculate that the assessments of the "degree of openness and transparency" occupy a broad band, and that David has an assessment some distance from the median. Walter wrote: > Several of us have asked for an explanation. I agree. I'd like to know more about the assessment and the basis for it. At the moment I don't perceive any problems with the governance of Sugar Labs. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel