[Members] How about a round-up post on FOSDEM/XMPP Summit @xmpp.org?

jehan at zemarmot.net jehan at zemarmot.net
Sun Feb 19 06:27:39 UTC 2012


Le 2012-02-19 01:04, Kevin Smith a écrit :
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:36 PM,  <jehan at zemarmot.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Le 2012-02-19 00:06, Matthew Wild a écrit :
>>> The fact is that we do have people who can't make the events who 
>>> would
>>> like to participate. Being able to hear the group discussions and
>>> talks that took place, after the event at a minimum, is helpful I
>>> think.
>> I concur.
> As do I. Streaming, with a means of remote contribution, is better 
> still.
>> This kind of decision from people who don't want their participation
>> recorded and published kind of makes the event feel like against the 
>> whole
>> idea of the XSF: a *public* Standards Foundation with an *open 
>> process*, as
>> far as I know, not a private company, here for money and wishing to 
>> hide
>> assets, secret business plan, or what else.
> This seems to be addressed to me, couched in terms of generality.

This was not addressed to you in particular, but to the members' list 
(in which you are indeed part). You are obviously the particular where 
this all came from, but it emerged into a *general idea* of proposing a 
new *general policy*. I was not going to write "Because Kevin Smith does 
not want his participation recorded…". I actually wrote generally 
because *it is general*.
So please don't take it personally. This is not about you but about the 
XSF and its open process.

> For the sake of clarity. I do not object to people's (including my
> own) participation being public. I object to recording of
> conversations that may potentially have *not* been contributions 
> being
> published, when the recordings themselves were made covertly. Had we
> already a Note Well, I would have no complaint here.
>> And if someone does not agree with it, one should not participate 
>> (none is
>> forced to) rather than prevent the open process of the Foundation.
> I'll get off my soapbox if you'll get off yours.

I perfectly accept the fact that some people don't want their 
contribution to be made public (and for instance in the current case, I 
never said we should go over your decision for the present recordings). 
All I say is that for the future such a case should not block anymore 
the transparency of the XSF work. So as Matthew said in better terms 
than me: « Ultimately there will always be people who fall on the wrong 
side of these kind of decisions, and hence not be able to participate. 
However we need to make decisions about cases like these, and make them 
known.» That's about compromising.

So once again, don't take it personal. I have nothing against you here. 
I was definitely not attacking you. Please would you not attack me 


> /K

More information about the Members mailing list