On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:22:56AM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > You cannot be both for and against transparency.
You can't be for or against anything that's as ill-defined as "transparency". The proposal itself was ill-defined. And the responses appropriately vague. Let's not over-simplify / straw man the discussion into pro-/anti-transparency, because that's a meaningless debate until the terms are defined. > As a community, we cannot both demand that leadership discussions > happen out in the open, while at the same time refusing to have our > own public conversations recorded. No ones refusing, but I don't want it facilitated because it doesn't serve any good purpose. As I've said before: > I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, > and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. >> Bernie proposed a reasonable solution that can be implemented without >> infringing upon anyone's privacy: private logging done by a user on a shell >> account, as is the norm for most IRC conversations. > > How is this better than logging automatically, which has the exact > same effect, except that everyone has access to the logs, instead of > only those who choose to keep the logs? It's better because it doesn't at all have the exact same effect. If I talk to you at the Beer Event at FOSDEM, do you object to it being recorded? ;) > --g Martin
pgp5A3ec1UnC7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) [email protected] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
