Many people feel that in the open source/free software community openness is about letting everyone become privy to any comment/decision/situation that may happen within a project. For the most part this is the goal we strive for but at the end of the day there are things that should remain private until they become real concerns for the public at large.
The issue is we have diverse communities that rarely agree 100% even among the best of friends. It becomes counter productive when these disagreements become the source of misinformed news articles without general consensus allowed to form within the community itself.
Forget the community for a minute. As individuals we often need to think before we speak in order to make sure we say exactly what we meant to say. The same goes for diverse groups. They must work out the directions they go in in an atmosphere that is free from the chilling effect of having to watch what they say because their intentions may be misinterpreted.
There is also the point of being able to freely express an opinion without fear of outward reprisals. There is a reason Democracy subsists on the concept of private ballots. It allows even the most unpopular opinions to at least be registered while individuals can be sure they won’t be ostracized. The openness comes from being free to dispute results, protest and influence them through public action, not from knowing the individual’s specific vote.
We strive to be inclusive with everyone who has a stake in what we do but when it becomes counter productive one needs to redress the situation so that we continue to move forward. It does no one any good to dwell on speculation from quarters which are ill informed and just looking for traffic grabbing sensationalism. It is perfectly fine to exclude them from discussions they have no stake in and let them feed on the results, judging the community based on its final actions and consensus.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
See you all at FUDCon!!!