(06-27-2013, 12:00 AM)Uther Wrote:People are making a mountain out of a molehill. Â The only reason that information is redacted was to avoid drama. Â There isn't a need for more transparency, because it's already transparent. Â There's no legitimate need to disclose specific names for these issues. Disclosing the names would only serve to shame or ostracize the parties involved, which is something I'd think we all want to steer clear of. Â These issues do need to be discussed at times, rarely, and outside of the immediate public view to avoid big dramastorms.(06-26-2013, 11:55 PM)Nate is Blue Wrote:Quote:including accusations of attempted sabotage toward the RPC in general.
This is my point. Right here. But this back-and-forth is getting us nowhere.
Granted, I don't know all of the facts. You're correct on that one and I'll admit to it. Once again though, if people are asking for less transparency, why not give it to them? No names have to be released for obvious reasons, but why not just put whatever was going to be said when someone asked via PM into the log?
I think during the next meeting, I'll try and start a discussion to get a definition of the scope of the LS leaders meeting, and a less nebulous guidelines on what should be redacted.
