I am not the only one that keep my contributions
confidential. There is
another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
best to have a confidential list.
This is not really saying much (if anything at all). It just translates to
"a member who we will not tell you anything about has his own reasons which
you cannot know".
- "repercussions in the professional sphere' is a really vague reason.
Helping wikipedia choose what languages to create sites for will have
'repercussions' that are that harmful to a scholar?
- How useful is that scholar anyway? I see most of the 'censored'
contributions are yours, if this person is not that active to begin with,
why should we accomodate such a peculiar situation? Does he/she provide such
a unique view that no one else out there can provide that input and we need
to accomodate him?
- I don't want to make this about you, but since as you said you are one
of the most active, and therefore I personally can hardly understand most of
the discussions with you censored out. I have to ask, If I somehow swallow
that this person has sound personal reasons and we need him, yet this person
may make one or two contributions per year, why do the rest of the
discussions have to be private? His/her contributions do not preclude
transparency as much as the other censored replies.