-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Frank Ellermann wrote:
But as SPF Council you're NOT authorized to discuss the public affairs of
the Community - and especially not this affair - in secret. You're NOT
authorized to censor the log files of the public Council meetings. If
you want private and therefore by definition unofficial meetings keep
them apart from the real job. The real job was to discuss #4 on Chuck's
agenda, or #8 and #9 on Julian's agenda.
You didn't do this. Private stuff is by definition irrelevant for the
community, and it also cannot reflect the will of the community, because
nobody knows what it is.
You are in error. Nowhere are private discussions defined to be outside
the scope of the SPF Council. Furthermore, /private/ council business /by
definition/ is not supposed to "reflect" the will of the community.
If you don't trust us, fine, then it seems there's nothing we can do about
it without deviating from the path we think is best for the SPF project.
Also, don't think we all have the same opinion just because we're having
private discussions together. Sometimes private discussions are necessary
within a committee in order to gain access to information which is
guaranteed not to be available publicly. Having access to such
information can be a strategical advantage, even if the secrecy leads to
the community not being able to follow our decisions for a while.
Anyway, feel free to judge us by our actions...
No big surprise, just read what Meng said immediately before you started
to censor the log file.
...but please refrain from making unfounded allegations. I am serious.
Nothing was censored from #spf-council.
Julian,
Council Member.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC0ozbwL7PKlBZWjsRAtv6AJoDJi+Jn8U0AAF8r4AtNp35i9LDxwCg8Jet
R176Kk+G1XqHuHouVNJ/My8=
=SFhA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----