4 ms·

Cases like these show how needed transparency is (see Mozilla). Hopefully this will cause Google to open up some more (although doubt it).

by kbody 10y ago

Klathmon 10y ago
They are being transparent, there is a scheduled meeting of everyone involved in january. And using this comment to rant a bit, I hate the idea that just because information isn't being announced immediately after someone finds out about something means that you aren't being "transparent". In this case, this was most likely discussed internally, and come jan they will present the results on why it was canceled giving insight into the why and perhaps it's replacement or their ideas moving forward. Now if come january it's just said "it's canceled" and nothing more, then i'll be right there with you calling for transparency and more discussion on the reasons, but you need to give the people involved a chance to actually have that discussion.
- ralfn 10y ago
  But we already got our pitch forks out and everything!
- moron4hire 10y ago
  The reason they have to have the announcement is because they discussed this and made the decision themselves in a non-transparent way. Or if that's not your definition of transparent, then what we want is more than just mere transparency. We want open discussion. I'm getting sick and tired of "open source" only happening when Google says so.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- mcguire 10y ago
  The proposal has been withdrawn. Why would it be on the agenda in January?
- spangry 10y ago
  I have a different view on 'transparency': something is 'transparent' if you can see the internals of that thing at any given moment. Time is a critical factor for transparency: What if, instead of the next meeting being in a month (where we hope this will be discussed), it was in a year? 2 years? 10? People have finite attention spans. There's probably a well-intentioned, innocuous explanation as to why the process has been set up like this: I imagine the time delay is intended to give people time to consider the issue (reducing the chances of irrational emotional outbursts, increasing the chances of rational discussion). However, introducing a delay between 'decision' and 'revelation' of the internal machinations behind the decision creates greater scope for people to act in bad faith. This seems at odds with what (I think) is the function of transparency. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off is a separate issue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

Cases like these show how needed transparency is (see Mozilla). Hopefully this will cause Google to open up some more (although doubt it).

by kbody 10y ago

Cases like these show how needed transparency is (see Mozilla). Hopefully this will cause Google to open up some more (although doubt it).

Klathmon 10y ago

They are being transparent, there is a scheduled meeting of everyone involved in january. And using this comment to rant a bit, I hate the idea that just because information isn't being announced immediately after someone finds out about something means that you aren't being "transparent". In this case, this was most likely discussed internally, and come jan they will present the results on why it was canceled giving insight into the why and perhaps it's replacement or their ideas moving forward. Now if come january it's just said "it's canceled" and nothing more, then i'll be right there with you calling for transparency and more discussion on the reasons, but you need to give the people involved a chance to actually have that discussion.

ralfn 10y ago
But we already got our pitch forks out and everything!
moron4hire 10y ago
The reason they have to have the announcement is because they discussed this and made the decision themselves in a non-transparent way. Or if that's not your definition of transparent, then what we want is more than just mere transparency. We want open discussion. I'm getting sick and tired of "open source" only happening when Google says so.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mcguire 10y ago
The proposal has been withdrawn. Why would it be on the agenda in January?
spangry 10y ago
I have a different view on 'transparency': something is 'transparent' if you can see the internals of that thing at any given moment. Time is a critical factor for transparency: What if, instead of the next meeting being in a month (where we hope this will be discussed), it was in a year? 2 years? 10? People have finite attention spans. There's probably a well-intentioned, innocuous explanation as to why the process has been set up like this: I imagine the time delay is intended to give people time to consider the issue (reducing the chances of irrational emotional outbursts, increasing the chances of rational discussion). However, introducing a delay between 'decision' and 'revelation' of the internal machinations behind the decision creates greater scope for people to act in bad faith. This seems at odds with what (I think) is the function of transparency. Whether this is an acceptable trade-off is a separate issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]