Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)

http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ lists 5 mailing lists of SPI. Except for the first 2, there is no description of what content each has or should receive. The descriptions of spi-private, spi-projects and spi-board only describe their membership.

spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions.

--

Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

* Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> [2016-10-01 12:49]:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ lists 5 mailing lists
> of SPI. Except for the first 2, there is no description of what
> content each has or should receive. The descriptions of spi-private,
> spi-projects and spi-board only describe their membership.

spi-projects is a list to which all the project liaisons of SPI
associated projects are subscribed. It's used by the board to contact
all project liaisons at the same time, e.g. to ask which projects
participate in Google Summer of Code and want SPI to handle their
payments or to get input from SPI projects on the SPI annual report.

spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's
also used as a contact address for the board.

Since the general public cannot subscribe to these lists, I don't
think it makes sense to list them at
http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/
It's just confusing.

I think I'll add the links to the onboarding info for directors and
liaisons instead (<http://spi-inc.org/corporate/onboarding/>).

> spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one
> topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not
> be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions.

Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the
conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only
be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived.

Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the page to make this
clearer?

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/

Hi Martin,

On 2016-10-04 14:33, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> [2016-10-01 12:49]:
>> http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ lists 5 mailing lists
>> of SPI. Except for the first 2, there is no description of what
>> content each has or should receive. The descriptions of spi-private,
>> spi-projects and spi-board only describe their membership.
> spi-projects is a list to which all the project liaisons of SPI
> associated projects are subscribed. It's used by the board to contact
> all project liaisons at the same time, e.g. to ask which projects
> participate in Google Summer of Code and want SPI to handle their
> payments or to get input from SPI projects on the SPI annual report.

Thank you
>
> spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's
> also used as a contact address for the board.

OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general?

>
> Since the general public cannot subscribe to these lists, I don't
> think it makes sense to list them at
> http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/
> It's just confusing.
>
> I think I'll add the links to the onboarding info for directors and
> liaisons instead (<http://spi-inc.org/corporate/onboarding/>).

As you want, I have no strong opinion on that.

>
>> spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one
>> topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not
>> be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions.
> Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the
> conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only
> be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived.

I agree with you. From the approximately 100 mails sent to spi-private which I have read, I do not remember a single one which could not have been sent to spi-general (instead).

>
> Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the page to make this
> clearer?
>

Can we find examples of topics which would be more appropriate to discuss on spi-private than on spi-general (or other currently existing lists)? Since we are not directly producing software, I do not see the interest of privacy for security, except insofar as we make use of potentially vulnerable software products.

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 10/08/2016 09:38 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Martin,

>
> Thank you
>>
>> spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's
>> also used as a contact address for the board.
>
> OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate
> to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general?

Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue.

>
>>
>> Since the general public cannot subscribe to these lists, I don't
>> think it makes sense to list them at
>> http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/
>> It's just confusing.

Actually I think they should be listed with their defined purpose and
their subscription requirements. It is part of the transparency and it
shows that we are conducting proper business.

>>> spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one
>>> topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not
>>> be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions.
>> Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the
>> conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only
>> be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived.
>
> I agree with you. From the approximately 100 mails sent to spi-private
> which I have read, I do not remember a single one which could not have
> been sent to spi-general (instead).

I prefer -private because generally speaking, I am talking to voting
members. The general public is great and there are times where that is
appropriate but we are not an open source project. We are a corporation
led by our members, with oversight by our board and run by our officers.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

On 2016-10-08 15:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/08/2016 09:38 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>
>>
>> Thank you
>>>
>>> spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's
>>> also used as a contact address for the board.
>>
>> OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate
>> to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general?
>
> Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue.

Why would a potential legal issue be confidential?
Do you know that there were discussions about that topic on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the volume? If not, do you have other examples of confidential topics which would be more appropriate for spi-board than for other lists?

>
>>
>>> [...]
>
>>>> spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one
>>>> topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not
>>>> be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions.
>>> Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the
>>> conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only
>>> be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived.
>>
>> I agree with you. From the approximately 100 mails sent to spi-private
>> which I have read, I do not remember a single one which could not have
>> been sent to spi-general (instead).
>
> I prefer -private because generally speaking, I am talking to voting members. The general public is great and there are times where that is appropriate but we are not an open source project. We are a corporation led by our members, with oversight by our board and run by our officers.

I fail to get this. Transparency is not only relevant to open source projects.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-08 15:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2016 09:38 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's
>>>> also used as a contact address for the board.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate
>>> to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general?
>>
>>
>> Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue.
>
> Why would a potential legal issue be confidential?

I would have thought legal issues should be private by default.
e.g. Project X has noticed company Y appears to be using their
software in breach of license and wants advice and legal assistance.
Going public with allegations might be good strategy, but personally
I would want to discuss this situation with lawyers privately first.

As an example of a legal issue which could be public, I asked
on behalf of Biopython (part of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation
umbrella) about *getting* legal advice on changing our open source
licence. SPI referred us to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC).

Regards,

Peter

P.S. I also support clearer labelling of the topic and intended
usage of each SPI mailing list - even having been subscribed
to some for a while now, this was and is not obvious to me.

On 10/10/2016 01:57 AM, Peter Cock wrote:

>>> Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue.
>>
>> Why would a potential legal issue be confidential?
>
> I would have thought legal issues should be private by default.
> e.g. Project X has noticed company Y appears to be using their
> software in breach of license and wants advice and legal assistance.
> Going public with allegations might be good strategy, but personally
> I would want to discuss this situation with lawyers privately first.
>
> As an example of a legal issue which could be public, I asked
> on behalf of Biopython (part of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation
> umbrella) about *getting* legal advice on changing our open source
> licence. SPI referred us to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC).

Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is
fine to be public. However there are others that are not.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

This replies to both Joshua and Peter.

On 2016-10-10 13:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 01:57 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
>
>>>> Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue.
>>>
>>> Why would a potential legal issue be confidential?
>>
>> I would have thought legal issues should be private by default.
>> e.g. Project X has noticed company Y appears to be using their
>> software in breach of license and wants advice and legal assistance.
>> Going public with allegations might be good strategy, but personally
>> I would want to discuss this situation with lawyers privately first.

I do not see why legal issues should be discussed privately, and I certainly think they should not be discussed privately by default.

It is fine to discuss an eventual situation with lawyers first, but I fail to see why that would have to be done privately.

>>
>> As an example of a legal issue which could be public, I asked
>> on behalf of Biopython (part of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation
>> umbrella) about *getting* legal advice on changing our open source
>> licence. SPI referred us to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC).
>
> Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is fine to be public. However there are others that are not.

Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of course, which has to be)?

>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> This replies to both Joshua and Peter.

>> Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is
>> fine to be public. However there are others that are not.
>
> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and,
> of course, which has to be)?

A health issue of a board member.

JD

>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> JD
>>
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of
> course, which has to be)?
>

Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a
certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member
project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a
complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain
date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just
keep quiet until that date.

henrik
--
henrik(dot)ingo(at)avoinelama(dot)fi
+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7

Hi Henrik,

On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of
>> course, which has to be)?
>>
> Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a
> certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member
> project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a
> complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain
> date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just
> keep quiet until that date.
>
> henrik

Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the frequency? If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example?

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

Hi Joshua,

On 2016-10-17 14:19, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> This replies to both Joshua and Peter.
>
>>> Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is
>>> fine to be public. However there are others that are not.
>>
>> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and,
>> of course, which has to be)?
>
> A health issue of a board member.

I suppose that was not an example legal issue, right? In any case, do you know if such an issue was already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the number of such discussions, say each decade?

>
> JD
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> JD
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 10/26/2016 05:49 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
>
> On 2016-10-17 14:19, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>> This replies to both Joshua and Peter.
>>
>>>> Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is
>>>> fine to be public. However there are others that are not.
>>>
>>> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and,
>>> of course, which has to be)?
>>
>> A health issue of a board member.
>
> I suppose that was not an example legal issue, right?

It is if we discuss it publicly.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

On 10/26/2016 05:46 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Hi Henrik,

>> henrik
>
> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you
> estimate the frequency? If you do not know, could you provide a concrete
> example?

While I was on board there was at least one instance where we had to
discuss something confidential with legal. There may have been others
but the reality is, you can't talk about everything publicly. There are
all kinds of issues when you do that including but certainly not limited
to privacy laws, defamation laws, etc...

Sincerely,

JD

>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a
>> certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member
>> project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a
>> complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain
>> date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just
>> keep quiet until that date.
>>
>
> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board?

I was involved in one.

> If so, could you
> estimate the frequency?

No. Mine was some time ago already, but also the only one I was
involved in. (e.g. frequency is 100%, but that's not really an
answer.)

> If you do not know, could you provide a concrete
> example?

No, that's kind of the point :-)

henrik

--
henrik(dot)ingo(at)avoinelama(dot)fi
+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc

My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:46:42PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board?

Certainly while I was on the board there was.

> If so, could you estimate the frequency?

Not really, it was quite some time ago.

> If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example?
>

Unfortunately not, as we were able to resolve the issue without going
through the courts. Which is kinda the point of dealing with things
privately...

Neil

Hi Joshua,

On 2016-10-26 21:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 05:49 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> Hi Joshua,
>>
>> On 2016-10-17 14:19, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>>>> This replies to both Joshua and Peter.
>>>
>>>>> Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is
>>>>> fine to be public. However there are others that are not.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and,
>>>> of course, which has to be)?
>>>
>>> A health issue of a board member.
>>
>> I suppose that was not an example legal issue, right?
>
> It is if we discuss it publicly.
>

Are you saying that discussing a health issue of a board member on a public mailing list would present a legal issue?

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 2016-10-26 21:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On 10/26/2016 05:46 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> Hi Henrik,
>
>>> henrik
>>
>> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you
>> estimate the frequency? If you do not know, could you provide a concrete
>> example?
>
> While I was on board there was at least one instance where we had to discuss something confidential with legal.

Thanks Joshua

> There may have been others but the reality is, you can't talk about everything publicly. There are all kinds of issues when you do that including but certainly not limited to privacy laws, defamation laws, etc...

I fail to see how defamation laws would prevent public discussion.

>
> Sincerely,
>
> JD
>
>>
>
>

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 2016-10-27 06:10, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>> Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a
>>> certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member
>>> project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a
>>> complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain
>>> date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just
>>> keep quiet until that date.
>>>
>> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board?
> I was involved in one.
>
>> If so, could you
>> estimate the frequency?
> No. Mine was some time ago already, but also the only one I was
> involved in. (e.g. frequency is 100%, but that's not really an
> answer.)
>
>> If you do not know, could you provide a concrete
>> example?
> No, that's kind of the point :-)

Thanks Henrik. I understand from your message that you consider that at least one discussion on spi-board was rightly kept private due to a particular legal risk, and that this discussion should remain private.

I encourage those with access to spi-board's content to explain why such discussions should not be public, perhaps using examples from past discussions which no longer need to be private.

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com

On 2016-10-27 08:46, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:46:42PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board?
> Certainly while I was on the board there was.

Thanks Neil

> [...]
>> If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example?
>>
> Unfortunately not, as we were able to resolve the issue without going
> through the courts.

How does resolution prevent from providing the issue as an example? In any case, note that I was asking for a hypothetical example.

> Which is kinda the point of dealing with things
> privately...

Mediation does not have to be secret (and by the way, court proceedings are not necessarily public neither).

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com