"Open records", "good government principles", "corporate culture"

[Boruch Baum]

From the recent thread "non-gnu elpa issue tracking"

On 2020-12-09 23:35, Richard Stallman wrote:
>   > 2) The acceptance or candidacy process for each package should be
>   >    documented in some discrete method.
>
> Whether to have a certain package in NonGNU ELPA could be a touchy
> question, in some borderline cases.  Stating the reasons could perhaps
> hurt feelings, or lead to arguments.  So it is best not to do that.
> We will add a package or we won't.

The paragraph explicitly evokes three fears:

  1) Avoid touchy questions;

  2) Avoid hurt feelings;

  3) Avoid arguments.

Implicit in the paragraph, I read:

  4) Fear of accountability;

  5) Insecurity and feelings of weakness;

  6) Unwilling to establish boundaries;

  7) Passive aggression;

For a private person conducting interpersonal relations ... Who cares?
Who wants to be judgmental? I can't be bothered.

However, for any professional environment in either the public or
private sector (of the "developed Western secular" world)... Should I
care? I'm an outsider to the emacs/GNU/FSF development team, but when I
read that paragraph, many frustrating interactions that I've had with
the several of the emacs team made a lot more sense.

Because I have limited 'skin in the game', I don't intend to rant or
compose a manifesto; the time I spend writing comes out of my limited
'charity' budget for contributing to FOSS. There's ample relevant
academic and professional literature on the "best practices" for
corporate culture and good governance[1].

  1) Avoid touchy questions

     I have no idea what you mean, but that's usually code for religion,
     sex, and politics. Clearly and openly establish your policies for
     no-go topics of discussion, and when those topics are brought up,
     say so and refer to your policy. Or just adopt the generally
     accepted professional standard.

  2) Avoid hurt feelings

     I have no idea what you mean, but that's usually code for
     intentional dishonesty or intentional unjustifiable decision-making
     (For example, in this case it's the rejection itself that causes
     the 'hurt feeling'. The refusal to disclose the reason for the
     rejection is just CYA).

  3) Avoid arguments

     I have no idea what you mean, but that's usually code for fear of
     oversight. Any exchange of ideas, no matter how polite, can be
     framed as an argument.


[1] Not my PhD. I write based upon personal professional experience
    in small/large/huge private sector companies and in government, in
    several countries. Several of my employers would even send all
    employees to formal internal training classes (with exams) on their
    corporate culture and good governance standards.

--
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0