On 18.10.2004, at 13:34, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 18 October 2004 19:05, Santiago Gala wrote:El lun, 18-10-2004 a las 11:08 +0200, Stephen McConnell escribió:
Seems to me that he's talking about a very real dark-side of the ASF.
Facts? I would like to see something substantial.
Same here. Maybe I'm blind but where is this 'dark-side ... where certain individuals enjoy playing
with private lists, protected themselves while at same time spreading lies, slander, and real fear'? [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Facts please...
Perhaps this is "culture", I don't know. But I have the distinct feeling that
more stuff than necessary are pushed into private forums. I happen to think
(and I think Steve is of the same opinion) that there is very little in OSS
that needs the secrecy.
Agreed, only staff-related discussions (new committers, members, ...) and security-related things spring to mind. Most of the rest should be public.
Other people in ASF is obviously of a different opinion, as my bashing on
community@ some weeks ago made brutally obvious.
Well, another recent thread on community@ showed that there's *no* majority in favor of a committers-private list, so...
One should compare it with a company, where secrecy is the norm, and chain of command is
from above downwards.
Uh - chain of command? Company? Am I missing something? This is a meritocracy based on volunteers, nothing more, nothing less. As everything, it comes with it's advantages and it's disadvantages but I'm really failing to see that secrecy and a company-like command structure is 'the norm' here.
Cheers, Erik
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
