Hello fellow SourceCred-ers:
I’m currently considering setting up a private “leadership” sub-category on the Discourse. This potentially has big implications around transparency and accountability, so I’d like to get thoughts from the community early in the process.
The rationale for having a private leadership category is simple: as SourceCred matures, there will increasingly be sensitive matters that it doesn’t make sense to discuss with full transparency. Potential examples include:
- discussing details and strategy around raising capital
- assessing and aligning with potential partners
- (someday) discussing strategy re: competitors
- handling sensitive interpersonal issues within the community
I think it’s unrealistic to expect that we’re going to do all of this in public. My sense is that if we don’t have a private leadership forum, it will all happen through back-channels. This has disadvantages around knowledge getting lost (we can’t onboard new leaders into past sensitive decision making) and leads to the tyranny of structurelessness. I’d prefer to have an explicit and sanctioned way to have these necessary private conversations–it has more potential for future regulation and accountability.
One may object that this risks bifurcating the community into “insiders” and “outsiders”. However, I suspect something like this is inevitable in practice, and making it explicit may make it more accountable.
If we want to flow cred within the leadership forum, it will make SourceCred less transparent and less audit-able, since only the leaders will know the true context of the cred graph within the private forum.
My proposal is that we do inaugurate the private category, but for now we don’t flow any cred through it, and just use it for sensitive communications. We can also make the list of people with access to the leadership forum public knowledge, so that the set of insiders is explicit. (I’m thinking of including @s_ben, @beanow, and @burrrata in this set at the moment.)
Please share your thoughts!