On Dec 3, 2007 2:39 PM, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
However, this type of bunker mentality and endemic
culture of secrecy
really isn't going to help. There should always be an openness to people
like me asking from the outside: could we do this better?
I accept that there's going to be a lot of arbcom stuff that needs
private communication - and none of that should be impeded. But the
principle ought to be "secret only when necessary".
The fact is right now that almost all arbcom deliberation is behind
closed doors - and is simply not open to the parties or, indeed, to
interfacing with concurrent community discussions.
A few arbs seem to comment on workshops etc - and all credit to them -
but where are the rest? (Granted some of these are such trolling
shitstorms that any sane person would avoid them.) I've only
occasionally seen arbs comment in the arbs 'discussion sections' of the
proposed decisions case - and I'm talking about cases where all
Now, if that's because arbs are listening to the discussion and have
nothing much further to say - fine. But I strongly suspect that the
mailing list is hot with "what do we do about user x,y or g" in cases
where the community is having the same discussion and there is no
confidential information at stake. (If I'm wrong about this, I
appologise and I'll go home with my tail between my legs.)
In terms of volume, deiberations regarding open cases are actually a fairly
small portion of the mailing list traffic. A much larger portion of the
discussion concerns incoming mail from outside the Committee (appeals,
complaints, questions, and so forth) that, while not necessarily covered by
the privacy policy, is nevertheless confidential -- not only because of
*our* comments, but because of the contents of the original mail itself.
Making this public would greatly limit the extent to which users are willing
to be forthright with us.
Aside from this, discussion among the Committee tends to be very, *very*
frank, mostly due to the fact that it occurs in a closed circle of highly
trusted users. If this discussion were to take place publicly, much of that
frankness would doubtless evaporate, to the detriment of our ability to come
up with workable solutions. (And, of course, Bismarck's dictum regarding
laws and sausages applies here as well.)
Kirill