Some staffing meetings at first might be hard to be transparent on, but what can’t be said in public probably shouldnt be said in private. Are you video taping and posting every meeting or working toward that goal?
Wheather we accept the idea of leadership, (which I dont,) we still have to walk the talk.
Some things are private, such as a sexual harrassment proceeding as we dont want witch hunts. Also, elevating associate privacy and personal space is part of the pursuit of trust and openess.
There will be vital unrecorded pub meetings but that is human space and human development and not for recording- its private space.
But the group would video and immediatly post all decision and strategy meetings and reserve all substantive matters for those open meetings.
People love people they can trust and the loyalty generated is basalt solid. If gold is “the full fat cream of metals” trust is the solid gold core of loyalty.
If the devs want to do this, it would be great. But I know that I wouldn’t want it, if I were in the dev team, so I don’t expect it of them either. I’m quite self-conscious when I know that I’m being filmed, which is not a problem if I take on some kind of public role, but it would bother me if it’d happen every time I have a meeting with technical topics.
I am really sick of this “full transparency” line of gibberish.
Seems to me that if you ever intend to use maidSAFE you are inherently not fully transparent because your files are parsed and encrypted and cannot be seen by anyone anyhow without your expressed allowing it… That is the opposite of transparent. And that is the design…
It is a Security platform intended to secure privacy and security of your files. It is NOT a transparency platform, and those who are parading it as if it is are mislead.
The software ought to be transparent to the point of “read it yourself on Github” But you nobody ought to have to shed an ounce of their privacy to volunteer and participate…
I think we rarely if at all have private meetings, well board meetings, but we have folks on skype etc. Our weekly staff meetings are transcribed and posted. Most talks I do we try and record, not always with success though.
Pretty transparent I think, but we do not slow down our work to become more so, don’t want a reality show happening. For software dev we have internal lists and private rooms, but I doubt we want too may folks in our debates which are generally very deep and many devs do not want to be public. Not because of hiding, but just they are not that kind of animal. I try to be as open as I can answering questions and posting stuff straight out of my head, I never self censor (within reason) I hope.
We also encourage community folks to sit in the office so they see everything which we like as well as friends kids etc. The push for quiet places to complete code is also very high though, it is hard work so even in our private slack channels folks just want fast answers and sometimes personal ones, so we allow these to be private fast answered and not embarrass anyone,
Within reason I think we are transparent, I would personally prefer no private lists etc. but not everyone cares as little as I do what folks think about what I say Perhaps a good thing in many ways
@seneca Yes, its bothersome and it may never become second nature.
@jreighley You dont get it I know but you have a different world view and set if priorites. I am completely genuine when I express my view that personal privacy is dependent on organizational transparency. A tiny bit of transparency made us aware of PRISM, and is helping us understand again that states cannot be trusted but should be at least transparent.
Even Gordon Brown has paid some lip service to this idea whose time has come. SAFE gives us the means. Now we can trust the open source code, but its made much easier if the organization itself is fully open. Its like good docs. Its also got a conceptual consistency basis.
Absolutely agree. I’m just happy that they are working on this software. I don’t need no “Bold & Beautiful episodes” of the SAFE network being made. Some people will be able to read the sourcecode afterwards and that’s what it should be all about. Some of the topic that we might talk about, might not be doable at this moment, I’m fine with that, because we really need to give these people the time/space to do their good job. Things like trust shouldn’t even be a topic, because the sourcecode will speak louder than words.
David gave a solid response which satisfied me but I think post launch especially there can an ever increasing effort toward ever increasing transparency.
Dont ever want the horrid reality show but above all things transparency even in process shows intent and motive. And people who will inevitably (sorry) trust their lives and livilihood to the effort will be greatly aided.
I think some in the forum are still coming to terms with the idea that our freedom for the foreseeable future looks like it will be determined by math and logic and understanding trust and transparency are very closely linked.
Yes, but for MaidSAFE as an organization to be entirely transparent, one would need to know the salaries, hours contributed, the positions the principals hold in other organizations, any political activity and allegiances etc… If an organization is truly transparent, it’s members have their privacies stripped naked…
I don’t have a “world view” aside form “There goes Warren again, speaking his political gibberish” Ideologies ought not interfere with the practicalities of doing the business of making a software platform particularly when it is fairly antithetical to your particular view of things… If MaidSAFE was to be totally transparent it would have to bar itself from using technologies such as MaidSAFE which would probably inhibit progress. Transparency is not really the goal. It is Warren’s goal, but I don’t think it is MaidSAFE’s goal.
@jreighley Some of that is private, but not disclosing political affiliations or which other boards one sits on is a massive unacceptable conflict of interest. Other boards tend to be a time conflict as well. This isnt some alien concept, in the states we used to block people from being on multiple boards and we need to return to that. If someone is on the Black Water board or has affiliations that make the look like an agency plant we’d want to know. Who wants to trust sponsored code?
I think its you that is confused here. Politics is unfortunately the priority. ProjectSAFE has been held out as an eventual replacement for a broken internet. That entails more than making sure people can watch porn in private. If we want to stop the liberty destroying spying and manipulation then transparency is a necessity. And there is a strong social justice component. Sorry, equity and jutice are almost identical.
Also, business is broken, the way it works is at the heart of most current problems. The idea that MaidSAFE would be barred from using SAFE in their own development process is nonsense. Its like saying once you’ve locked your front door its sealed forever.
Microsoft says its all open source now. Do we trust that? IBM has Adept? Think Big Blue is transparent? Competent and smart but how much do you trust it? Which side of things is it on, and what are its conflicts even as an open source provider? Who about the CIA, they’ve seen the light and want to fork SAFE? Naval intelligence was the most trustworthy of agencies and forward thinking and TOR had good people aware and trying to overcome problems but they werent able prevail in the end.
Its all about trust and that means its all about transparency. Want trust based on secrecy(?), thats the Fed model and its not sustainable.
@Warren I am pretty sure that you will never be able to trust anyone… I have no problem with sponsored code, so long as the code does what the code is supposed to do. It is pretty rare that code does anything other than what the code does…
The CIA, NSA, Walmart, Koch Bros, Blackwater, Halliburton etc can use MaidSAFE and there is nothing that you are anybody else can do about it. MaidSAFE is designed to keep secrets. It will be very good at that…
It is not a transparency platform. It is a security platform. It doesn’t matter weather you like it or not. The code keeps secrets. That’s all.
Warren, we’ve already had most of this conversation about transparency in the “Everybody Spies or Nobody does” thread you started. I repeat ( a snippet) of what I said, the thread went on a while:
"Lol….I don’t get the total transparency, spying for all or nobody argument. Who exactly do we want to be transparent and who exactly do we want to protect from spying? I would suggest that we want the Govts/finance industry etc to be transparent to the public and the public to be protected from snooping by Govt/Corporations……end of.
This is table turning technology in regard to sorting the public privacy aspect out and the “smarts” type apps that run on blockchain tech (hosted on safe somehow) sorts the Govt/Finance accountability to public aspect out……I don’t see the problem here……
Corporations would be accountable to Govt I would expect in same way – there is no need to invade private business secrets …they should be treated in same way as any other private citizen’s information. Warren you are conflating the two concepts here I think and wrongly categorizing Corporations.
. Safe will help guard against any Corporate shenanigans by giving the dis-gruntled employee/whistleblower more security/anonymity – the larger the Corporation, the harder to point the finger I would expect.
Is “Transparency” now the new “Advertising/Spam” bee in your bonnet…lol?
@AlKafir yes to me its an extension of the same theme. With media I think it means the conflict of interest in sponsorship/censorship and the absence of any editorial firewall will become glaringly obvious through increasing transparency leaks and we will see media entities that onlt the money from their legitimate end users take over.
With regard to the state I think it ceases to be practical to run on graft and blackmail and that means the misrepresentation and lying is greatly reduced as is the state sponsored terror.
Af for courts I dont think the should be enforcing state or corporate secretd and I think it will be cease to be possible. To me state secrets are the heart if criminality and need to cease to be protected but instead prosecuted.
Corporations will just have to treat employees better if the want to hold onto info for a while. That means not hiring or promoting psychopaths, and realizing the consequences when they do.
And @jreighley let me remind that sure Sony will be able to plausibly lock data in A SAFE vault but if more than one employee has the keys it looks like any anonymous employee with access could drop the keys to that vault for global access. Further, any anonymous employee could provide the allegation of a crime and info on motive means and intent which would be followed by a court forcing the examination of data on threat of injunction. Firms that dont divulge find themselves barred from big geographic areas which is good, we just need to make sure we bar more than production but also sales even of integrated parts into areas.
Firms who abuse employees will also face a cummulative public talley. I think much of the bullshit known as management will be criminalized. This is much better than unions ever were.
@jreighley the idea that it keeps secrets and that is all is delusional. Crypto tech turns out to be a revolution for tranparency, and SAFE most assuredly a is a transparency platform along with many other things. That is great news for personal privacy. How pratical is it to disappear people when its apt to end upbin the public record along with the identites if the parties responsible?
Lol…can’t work out whether it’s the syntax rendering your post incomprehensible to me and warping my mind…or the big fat spliff…your’re twistin’ my melon man…lol
MaidSAFE circumvents PRISM because it is survailence proof — Because it is encrypted and charded … And there is no central authority to raid or subpoena… Those things have nothing to do with transparency…
If people think the right thing to do is to leak they ought to leak. But oddly the idea that they should be able to leak secretly is anti-transparency. The idea “privacy for individuals” Transparency for corporations and governments" doesn’t fly. Technology does what it does, and it doesn’t care who it does it for – It works the same for everybody and everything…
I think it does fly because scaling up from privacy or one private user to trying to accomodate many users for secrecy or collusion for instance ramps up the risk of spontaneous tranparency such that the assumption of transprency is the only reasonable assumption. With current tech there is much more of a paper trail which blocks disclosure and the expression of conscience.
On balance I think it helps groups like Anonymous much more than Sony or dirty hand or straight malevolent actors.
Perhaps a good thing in many ways 
