[This post is written in my own name and is not posted on behalf of the rest of the SC]
Dear everyone,
To get the ball rolling and help build trust in the new SC, I’d like to introduce to the SC agenda some topics that are likely to gather broad agreement.
During the elections, all newly elected members emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, so I expect we can easily find strong support for constitutional changes in that direction.
I already have a few concrete proposals that I intend to submit for a vote, but I’m a believer in direct democracy — and I’d really like to hear your contributions first. This could surface ideas and perspectives I might not have thought of.
Here’s what I’m inviting you to share:
A constitutional amendment that improves the transparency and/or accountability of the SC;
Written in a form that’s ready for SC deliberation (i.e., concrete language that can be added to the constitution);
A “low-hanging fruit”: something impactful yet likely to achieve broad consensus.
Example (which I already plan to submit):
I propose that we amend the constitution to add this sentence at the beginning of the “Steering Committee Decision Process” section: Every decision of the Steering Committee subject to a vote must be publicized with the detail of the vote of each individual member.
Looking forward to your ideas. If this experience yields positive results, I intend to continue involving the community as often as possible in future initiatives.
Hi, I think amending the constitution is a bit premature, if it is the right word. With that I mean, not every detail about how the SC operates need to be set in stone (written in the constitution).
It is more important, in my view, that the SC members strive become a well functioning team, that cooperates well with each other and is open to feedback and constant improvement.
I propose the newly constituted SC agrees on a way of working that includes how it intends how to be transparent, and then publishes that as a promise to the community. I think this is better because it would say more how well the SC is able the collaborate
Why don’t you just try a bunch of things without the pressure of having to keep all of them, to figure out what actually works, and only then put what actually worked it in the constitution?
Corner case question (for constitutional amendment; if it is SC procedural rule voted by a majority, exceptions can be made by a majority too) — does this prevent SC decisions based on currently nonpublic information?
If SC serves as an escalation point of last resort for some of the conduct complaints, SC might decide how to seek more details together but not be ready to say much openly (up to concerns that publishing the exact decision taken could disclose things that might end up considered libel)
Can a company (looking at Flox-Nvidia binary cache blog post) ask for SC opinion (and possibly «under what condition would you endorse») but delay publishing until the NDA-heavy external counterparty makes up their mind?
A wide but brightly visible escape hatch option (possibly too wide): «If a proposed decision itself contains information that is currently not to be made public, before the vote on the actual decision the SC may vote to agree on the redacted version of the decision, on the justification of redaction, and the conditions of full publication. Any decision establishing expectations or restrictions on some person or persons shall be known to all such persons in full, with the complete voting record.»