Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello Sam

I understand your intention to make it as much transparent as possible. 
However I am at the opinion that sometimes absolute transparency may not 
be a good thing. For example when there is a problem that sensitive 
information must be put publicly and may not be a good thing to do and 
because it is 'written on stone' even decisionmakers cannot do anything 
about.

I prefer to trust them and leave the flexibility to them. I don't see 
much reason this should be used as a rule, but quiet exceptionally so in 
general I mostly agree with your intent of transparency.

Thanks for putting up you points and for having this good discussion.
Fernando

On 05/10/2020 19:49, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:15:48AM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>> On 05/10/2020 10:48, Sam Kuper wrote:
>>> Maybe the best solution would be to have wording a bit like this:
>>>
>>>       Decisions must be made in public, unless they concern embargoed
>>>       security issues (maximum embargo length: 3 months,
>>>       non-renewable).
>>>
>>> Would that be closer to satisfying your concerns?  Would you like to
>>> propose better wording?
>> Why not just keep it simple ?
> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."  :)
>
> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
>
>
>> If the text is kept as: "Decisions should be made public" leaves up to
>> the decisonmakers to resolve if something specific should be discussed
>> in public or not due to sensitiveness under their own judgment. [..]
>>
>> I don't think this way transparency and mainly democracy are being
>> violated in any way.
> Those two sentences seem somewhat contradictory.  Leaving it "up to the
> decisionmakers to resolve if something ... should be discussed in
> public" is obviously less transparent than agreeing upfront that all
> decisions (with one or two narrow exceptions) will be made in public.
>
> Put differently, my proposal would impose a higher level of transparency
> & accountability than yours: it would *require* it, rather than just
> *hoping* that the decisionmakers will provide it.
>
> If you prefer the lower level, OK.  But I prefer the higher level, it
> leaves less to chance.
>
>
>> The default rule is to be public and regarding
>> democracy it is among those who can vote, therefore the
>> decisionmakers.
>> Perhaps something can be added to the rules is stating clearly that if
>> a decision is about another decisionmaker then he/she cannot vote.
> In government contexts (local, national, ..), candidates can usually
> vote for themselves or their interests.  (Con: risks corruption.  Pro:
> simple; also, transparency, if present, reduces risk of candidates
> voting against constituents' interests.)
>
> OTOH in corporate/similar contexts, board members must recuse from
> discussion, & must not vote, where they have a conflict of interest.
> (Pro: reduces some corruption risk.  Con: complex; means defining
> conflicts of interest & upholding the definition.)
>
> I'm ambivalent between the two conventions.  If you favour the latter,
> fine by me.  It is the less simple of the two, though.
>
>
>
> With that, I think I have made all the points I wish to on this topic.
> I am grateful for the +1s that others gave in support of my suggestion,
> & grateful to you & others for your considered replies, even though
> I may not have convinced you.  Grateful also that OpenWRT provides this
> forum for respectful discussion.  Thanks.
>
>
> All best,
>
> Sam
>