[Foundation-l] WMF Development and Memes - Foundation transparency

[luke brandt]

Mike Godwin wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell writes:
> 
.....
> 
>> Transparency is something which is objectively measurable, so we
>> should be able to escape the trap of inferences.
> 
> I am of the view that very few human enterprises and products lend  
> themselves to objective measurability. Back before I went to law  
> school, I was for a while a graduate student in experimental  
> psychology. What convinced to me leave the program was my feeling that  
> attempts to quantify and characterize human cognitive processes were  
> grounded irreducibly in subjectivity.  You remind me of that period of  
> my life when you say that "Transparency is something which is  
> objectively measurable."  I'm unaware of studies that demonstrate  
> irrefutably that this is the case, and I'm not sure there's even an  
> objective definition of "transparency."  You may of course know more  
> about experimental studies on the subject than I do -- my experience  
> is a quarter-century out of date.
> 
> Nevertheless, I find that, when dealing with human beings and their  
> enterprises and when dealing with something as philosophically  
> freighted as "transparency," it's more effective to insist on trying  
> to act ethically rather than to insist on objectively measurable  
> criteria.
> 
.....
> 
> 
> 
> --Mike
> 

Hi,

On the topic of transparency, there was a so-called secret mailing list, 
as some characterized it, e.g.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

Jimbo prefers the word 'private' to 'secret' - he's said so on several 
occasions. Do you see any ethical objection for the existence (and save 
in defined circumstances, membership) of all mailing lists known to the 
Foundation, associated with the encyclopedia and related projects, to be 
made public.

Do you see any argument for such disclosure?

Thanks in advance