[IAEP] irc logs

[Martin Dengler]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:22:56AM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> You cannot be both for and against transparency.

You can't be for or against anything that's as ill-defined as
"transparency".  The proposal itself was ill-defined.  And the
responses appropriately vague.  Let's not over-simplify / straw man
the discussion into pro-/anti-transparency, because that's a
meaningless debate until the terms are defined.

>  As a community, we cannot both demand that leadership discussions
> happen out in the open, while at the same time refusing to have our
> own public conversations recorded.

No ones refusing, but I don't want it facilitated because it doesn't
serve any good purpose.  As I've said before:

> I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity,
> and context-mining involved in browsing such a log.

>> Bernie proposed a reasonable solution that can be implemented without
>> infringing upon anyone's privacy: private logging done by a user on a shell
>> account, as is the norm for most IRC conversations.
>
> How is this better than logging automatically, which has the exact
> same effect, except that everyone has access to the logs, instead of
> only those who choose to keep the logs?

It's better because it doesn't at all have the exact same effect.  If
I talk to you at the Beer Event at FOSDEM, do you object to it being
recorded? ;)

> --g

Martin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090205/1c59f5cb/attachment.pgp