GNOME Foundation in-confidence issues

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Jonathon Jongsma">

> Yes, you did give some of these examples, and I agree that there are
> situations within these broad categories that would require some level of
> secrecy.  But the fact that we don't know any of the details means that
> there is still not enough information for me to judge whether the secrecy
> is warranted.  That's why I proposed making the specific details public
> after the fact, so that when we see the full details we can judge for
> ourselves whether we think the board's choice was the correct one.

What details do you want?

I'm saying that I believe the secrecy is clearly and *obviously* warranted
in these cases, simply due to the nature of the examples. We can't give you
sensitive employment information "after the fact" so you can determine
whether it should have been secret or not, because it's still very clearly
sensitive.

> That's why I suggested that the board provide a sufficiently detailed
> explanation after-the-fact whenever a decision is made to keep something
> secret from the foundation members.

In most cases, we can give you an explanation of why we are going to keep
something secret *before* it happens. But giving you the "secret details"
afterward (so you can make your own value judgement on whether they should
have been secret or not) is in most cases, completely impractical.

For instance, we're going to hire someone and you're not going to see their
employment contract. End of story. No details to give "after the fact". How
will you judge whether that is an appropriate use of secrecy? [1]

- Jeff

[1] From my POV, it's an *employment contract*, so it's utterly obvious from
the outset that it's going to be a secret now and into the future, before a
question about it is even raised.

-- 
A Stream of Numbers. See you there.     37.40629 -121.97653 2007 04 19 09 07