On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:31:14 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 7:05:30 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:38:10 -0800 > > > > Daniel Campbell wrote: > > > > > > I think a more fair restriction would be to place it on Comrel and > > > Council, as they are being trusted to not share private information. > > > What the two (or more?) sides do in a dispute isn't something we can > > > reasonably control, except on our own infrastructure. I find it > > > unnecessary and meaningless to place sanctions on users or other > > > participants of a conflict if they choose to make their communications > > > public. It's /their/ dirty laundry, after all. > > > > This particular point, aside to ensuring that teams keep the necessary > > secrecy, serves the goals: > > > > 1. to discourage users from taking 'revenge' on others by disclosing > > their secrets, > > > > 2. to discourage users from bickering and turning Gentoo into a public > > stoning place whenever they are unhappy with a disciplinary decision. > > > > The first point is more important. Consider the following case. Alice > > tells Bob her secret. Some time later Bob starts bullying Alice. > > Eventually, Alice files a complaint at ComRel and Bob gets banned. Now, > > Bob wants to reveal Alice's secret to take revenge on her. > > Making everything public ensures no secrets. Privacy and secrecy should not > exist or be needed for a public open source project. With the only exception > being security vulnerabilities for obvious reason. > > Any event being handled likely started in public to begin with, thus should > remain that way for 100% transparency. Also to ensure no problems with leaking > or making private/secret information public. Solves many problems. I can understand that you have no life outside Gentoo but some people do, and they have a right to keep them private. -- Best regards, Michał Górny