Tue 15 Dec 2009
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 ]
December 16th, 2009 at 12:43 am
If someone causes a problem, work around them, fine.
But when you work in a closed manner, you also lock out potential new contributors.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Mo,
This is a different issue than the one we talked about. I’m talking about stakeholders being able to bring up concerns, even in a devil advocates way without fear of an uninformed public taking it out of context. Family fights should be allowed to happen, but they shouldn’t have to be aired in public.
If the discussion is relevant to new comers then I agree, we strive to not close off communication. They, in that sense, are stakeholders. But ask yourself, would you want all of your intimate discussions/moments published for the world to see? Does saying no make you a closed person?
December 16th, 2009 at 3:27 am
I like the transparency in decision making: when a newcomer come to the project he can read the archive, see how the past decision were made and can consciously decide if we want to be part of that group.
I know the sensationalistic journalism will make a mountain from a molehill for page views and cause PR disasters, but I think it is a price worth paying for the sake of transparency and inclusiveness.
If you want to keep some things private, then you will be forced to divide the community in two: the “inner circle” knowing “the stuff” and “second class” contributors and the project stops being friendly.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Ah, the old corporatist vs. collegiate wars. You got where you are through collegiate promotion, and now want to impose corporatist controls to protect your own interests.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Hi John,
I completely agree with you. I’m “only” a GNOME user and I enjoy reading foundation-list but I also need the need for an private list.
This has nothing to do with the latest “GNOME vs GNU” discussion. But I think it is important that the Foundation Members can speak freely with each other. This is not possible if everyone know that the discussion is public, google&Co will archive it for ever etc.
I think there must/should be a place where the members can speak freely to each other, criticize each other, othe projects, maybe even GNOME or parts of GNOME without the fear to great a wrong image.
I consider this really important to keep a healthy discussion-mentality and that’s probably why all well know organisation have private lists (FSF, FSFE, FSFLA, FSFI, KDE, FFII, EFF,…) and why also democratic politicans sometimes meet behind closed doors and don’t discuss everything with press attendance.
So even If I like to read foundation-list I would support the creation of a private list where members can go to speak freely and in private with each other.
December 16th, 2009 at 6:17 am
I don’t agree with this at all. As Jarral noted, you get an elitist circle again and that’s not good. Elitist circles exist anyway, but they should be as transparent as possible. (I’m not talking about committers here, I’m talking about us well-known people having informal discussions when meeting that a lot of discussions are based on.)
And if you want to voice your issues anonymously, you can do that right now: create a hotmail account and post to the mailing list. Nobody will think it’s you.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I agree with this. Especially because of this part:
“There is also the point of being able to freely express an opinion without fear of outward reprisals. ”
I do think that we must at all costs avoid what Benjamin refers to as “elitist circles”. It should be possible for all foundation members to join the private list. It should also be possible for an outsider to be voted or invited in.
And I think that after N months, the discussions should be opened to the public. Or at least a digest or a summary of it.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I completely disagree with your post as well.
Ultimately it is through total openness that projects survive and attract contributors. Projects (or should I say products) that are false-open source have all of the disadvantages with very few of the advantages.
Democracy hardly subsists on private ballots — see congress, or even ancient Greece. (Though these are in fact Republics, anyone can do the work to join in). Do you need to vote on all issues? No. But it is critical that everyone be able to talk with their representatives and share suggestions. When a discussion is made behind closed doors, you give up on all the interesting ideas that you did not anticipate, you give up the potential for ever hearing something that will completely change the course of a project forever.
When people are not constructive, kick them out the door or at least prod them and tell them to shape up. This is not a reason to take a ball and go home.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@J5:
“Family fights should be allowed to happen, but they shouldn’t have to be aired in public.”
But when everything is public, you’ll force yourself to avoid those fights and resolve conflicts in a more professional and efficient manner.
Seems like a benefit to me.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@Michael
A lot of people want to bring this back to individuals being disruptive but that isn’t what I am talking about. This has nothing to do with the main decisions which move the project forward. Those should always be open. It is more about allowing members to bring consensus on mostly non-technical issues (e.g. blow off steam and then become a bit more reasonable) without letting it distract from the real mission of the project, until it does actually become something that will effect the project.
If you haven’t been following, this is RE: the GNU/GNOME split debate which was brought up by one guy and seconded by another – hardly a representation of how GNOME itself felt about the issue. It is a non-issue because unless they get 10% of the membership to sign a petition to put it up for ballot it isn’t going anywhere. If they did then at that point it would necessarily have to be made public. This is not taking your ball and going home with it. This is making sure the playground is clean so anyone can play ball.
Taking on issues with blanket black and white zeal might simplify things (e.g. you are either the light of good or axis of evil) but ignores the complexities of real life. Balance is hard to achieve and I understand the fear of crossing a line when talking about openness vs. closed cabals. We do need to be mindful of that line but we also need to be able to separate openness from sensational voyeurism.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
@bochecha,
No, you tend to repress them and they tend to explode at some point.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The problem with Lefty and Philipp’s posts is that they didn’t want them to be private. So I think your suggestion of a closed list wouldn’t have helped at all.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@Benjamin Otte: You are sure about it? I’m not. I know that especially Lefty likes to discuss thinks over and over again and at least soemtimes it seems like he searches more publicity than a solution.
But with a private list this would be different. Beeing member of a private list would bring the obligation to to keep discussions private before the foundation decides to go public (with a result).
If the ego of some persons would be that big that for them it would be more important to get some publicity for their course than the good of the GNOME Foundation. Than it would be up to the Foundation to deal with such people. In the worst case the Foundation could kick such a person out.
In the past I was a member of some (quite large) private lists and as far as i know information never leaked. At least not in a way that they could have been connected with the organisation/group behind the private list. So I would say it’s also possible for the GNOME Foundation.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
@Bejamin Otte: Excuse me? I would definitely have preferred a private foundation mailing list for the few mails that I wrote related to this split-thing.
My posts also weren’t connected to Lefty’s. I don’t think I replied to much of Lefty’s posts, or to any of them (at least not in the public foundation mailing list, not as far as I know).
So I don’t know what the connection is that you are trying to make? In any case, perhaps did Lefty wanted his posts to be public, perhaps he didn’t.
What is certain that what he wanted might very will be completely different than what I wanted.
And you certainly don’t have to speak for me what I wanted. It’s also inaccurate.
Thank you
December 17th, 2009 at 3:04 am
I for one want to know what Philip Van Hoof has to say, so I’d prefer if it not be private. I’m not singling out Philip Van Hoof but he is a Gnome contributor. Because Gnome is in Red Hat which I am an investor, I find his beliefs very important to my companies decisions regarding our interest in Red Hat.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Hi, I thought this was a great post, thanks. Whether it is in reference of a particular issue or not, the ideas are valid and it’s too bad more people don’t understand this. At least the way I read it anyways. cheers!
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm
My experience with private “core” mailing lists is that it’s not a place for people to discreetly air grievances, it’s an enabler of politicking and back-biting, as you know no one else will be reading a judging you on what you say.
Their boosters always claim nothing technical or relevant to “the little people” is discussed there, but that claim is made post-facto to justify continued abuse of an elite forum.
Bottom line is people say things they otherwise wouldn’t when they know others are listening. The question is whether that’s a good thing or bad. It’s been my experience that “venting” tends to entrench and balkanize positions, not clarify or solve them.
People in general should *not* say the first thing they are thinking, but rather take time to moderate their point of view. This is how real compromise and consensus happen.