On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:40 -0500, inode0 wrote: > > FESCo seems to manage to do most of its business and I believe all of > its voting in public. So I'm not getting the sense that adding some > inefficiency and inconvenience to the board in the conduct of some > part of its business is so insurmountable an obstacle. > > How strongly do we believe in transparent governance? Opting out when > there is a legal or sensitive issue is one thing, opting out because > being transparent is more inconvenient than the alternative is > another. There is a difference here. The board constantly deals with things of a nature that can't be made public at the time of the board meeting. FESCo /never/ has that, as whenever it runs into a legal issue, it gets bounced up to the board (or just fedora legal directly). We are going to make a concerted effort to provide more visibility into the non-sensitive matters that are discussed at board meetings, but we'll continue to do the meetings in a phone manner due to the high bandwidth and better feel for what is being said. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
