Keeping RO discussions in the public repo about culture HOT 8 CLOSED

Sounds fair to me.
On 8 Mar 2016 22:41, "Sean Sube" [email protected] wrote:

I see being an RO as a very limited sort of public servant, so I think we
should keep all discussions related to electing, impeaching, and debates
between ROs in the public repo.

It's important that both existing ROs and other users be able to support
or voice concerns about an RO, especially when we're discussing adding or
removing someone.

Thoughts?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#32.

from culture.

👍

from culture.

I think that's exactly how it should be. ROs are responsible for the QOL within the chat, and therefore transparency is a must.

from culture.

Also, this is largely a duplicate of #29, but I hope we can codify how that applies to RO status.

from culture.

👍 * 💯
(just wanted to use the 100 icon)

from culture.

I originally made that issue in a private room because the implications of it being in the open worried me a bit. Let's say that you the were the subject of the discussion of keeping you an RO, it spanned several personal topics and at the end you stay an RO then that discussion would potentially be a blemish on your name.

That felt like something I wouldn't have wanted to be done to me so I opened it in a private room to be hashed out, but the final decision should be of course done in a public repo.

from culture.

+1.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:34 PM Canop [email protected] wrote:

This is a valid point. We should be able to say that we don't think X is
able to be a RO without risking embarrassing him elsewhere (job, friends,
presidential race, etc.)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#32 (comment)
.

from culture.

Closing, consensus sounds like we discuss any RO actions, happenings in the public eye.

from culture.