Effect on corruption (Re: Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public)
chealer at gmail.com
Wed Sep 28 00:40:15 UTC 2016
On 2016-09-19 06:54, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Filipus Klutiero writes ("Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public"):
>> I request to make membership public or more public. I do not see
>> what part of the information currently stored in applications could
>> be private, so I think applications should be made public by
>> default, but at a minimum, it should be possible for one to make its
>> own applications public.
> I think someone ought to be able to be a contributing member of SPI
> without that necessarily being public.
> Bear in mind that our contributing members are our governing body, and
> might be subject to pressure from (eg) employers to vote in particular
I am surprised to see the risk of corruption as an argument for keeping membership private, when opening would also allow to study which organizations are linked to SPI members. Are you aware of pressure from employers to influence the votes of SPI contributors?
I doubt this is desirable, but if we only agree on an opt-out transparency, the software powering nm.debian.org does not support that to my knowledge (but I have only used that site to obtain information).
More information about the Spi-general