Re: GNOME Foundation in-confidence issues

["Jonathon Jongsma" <jonathon jongsma gmail com>]

On 4/13/07, Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org> wrote:
> <quote who="Jonathon Jongsma">
> 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.

I wasn't asking for employment details (though I don't think that's
necessarily the clear-cut issue that you seem to -- many
organizations, groups, churches, non-profits disclose employment
terms, salaries, etc to their members.  But no matter, I wasn't
arguing that I want those details).  When I made the comment, I was
thinking more about the previous meeting minutes discussion which said
essentially "some items were omitted from the public minutes".   After
some prodding, there was some clarification about the nature of these
omissions, and I guess I'm suggesting that these clarifications should
maybe be a matter of course.

In any case, I realize that my comments probably came across as more
critical than I intended them to be, so instead of creating more
negative energy on this list, I'll just end this conversation here.

cheers.
--
jonner