Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Sam Kuper]

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

-- 
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.