Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Paul Oranje]

> Op 6 okt. 2020, om 04:00 heeft Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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.
Again, why frame this discussion as about **absolute** transparency ?
The rule proposed by Sam is not stating that.

There seems to exist consensus about having certain sensitive specific type of matters that warrant some prudence in public handling - i.e. in those cases the transparency is relative and weighted against other interests (which should be defined beforehand in the rules).

> 
> 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
>> 
Sincerely yours,
Paul