On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 11:27:47 -0800, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm going to strongly suggest that if the first draft of such a > transparent process document doesn't attempt to address the > community's perception of what the legal constraints are..but instead > reads as a bald demand for instant disclosure. Then you haven't done > your jobs at creating an useful starting point for a dialogue on the > issue.. and you'll have squandered an opportunity to increase process > transparency. Maybe we need to do something to reduce the legal constraints on the process. At some point perhaps the leadership will be able to explain how legal considerations got entangled with the Fedora part of the breach and we can make some changes to avoid that entanglement in the future. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
