On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 04:30:15PM +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote: > > A very few discussions must be private: Consider that except for some > documentation and policy, our only "product" is developers and the > interactions among them, really. Now, if we were of one mind, there > would be no problem, but we are not --- we are individuals with > individual approaches and philosophies (even the log which triggered > this thread might give some indications of that). Like it or not, this > means that some discussions can include references to people which > usually are not intended (the references; we can't speak to the history > of the people), but in public might be injurious. Obviously I am not > going to elaborate, but you can probably imagine situations which can > set off such discussions. > > Now, that said, we (devrel) agree that we do too much in private, and > believe it or not, we try to avoid it (I think the log contains some > mention of this, too). So with the one (small, actually) exception > outlined at length above, I think devrel pretty much agrees with > ciaranm's observation; I believe it is our (informal) policy to work in > public with -private as the exception. This doesn't mean we always > observe said "policy", but we are aware of the issues. For example, I > refer you to ribosome's observation in the log at 20:57 and kloeri's > followup at 20:57 -- 58. Agreed, we should try to keep as much as possible public and ensure as much transparency as possible. That doesn't mean that there can't be things we should keep confidential however. > > I should emphasize that I am speaking as an individual member of devrel, > I am giving my own spin on things, and I do NOT speak here for devrel as > a whole. > I'm speaking on behalf of devrel because I can :)
Regards, Bryan Østergaard -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
