On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck <me(a)marcusbuck.org> wrote:
What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The
things you do in
your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists.
Pretty much. (Most recent exception was personal congratulations on
the birth of a child.) There's a principle that anything that doesn't
need to be confidential should go to foundation-l as well. (Some
people read internal-l but not foundation-l.)
I don't
know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
transparent.
+1
Gerard has offered *no* substantive reason the language committee list
needs such provisions, and instead has offered spurious
counter-attacks and claimed it's an attempt to push people off for
"opportunistic reasons".
It's not. Gerard, it's asking you why on earth you need a secrecy
provision no-one else has, and for you - or anyone else on the
language committee - to explain precisely why this is required, and
why it should be allowed to stand.
Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.
- d.