Hi Ian,
On 2016-09-19 06:54, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public"):
I request to make membership public or more public. I do not see
what part of the information currently stored in applications could
be private, so I think applications should be made public by
default, but at a minimum, it should be possible for one to make its
own applications public.
I think someone ought to be able to be a contributing member of SPI
without that necessarily being public.
Bear in mind that our contributing members are our governing body, and
might be subject to pressure from (eg) employers to vote in particular
ways.
I am surprised to see the risk of corruption as an argument for keeping
membership private, when opening would also allow to study which organizations
are linked to SPI members. Are you aware of pressure from employers to
influence the votes of SPI contributors?
I doubt this is desirable, but if we only agree on an opt-out transparency, the
software powering nm.debian.org does not support that to my knowledge (but I
have only used that site to obtain information).
Ian.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
