Turmoil for Drupal

In this case the people making the decision were aware of the evidence and so could take it into account.

> These are basic steps necessary for people to have confidence in the institutions, and to avoid both corruption ("sunlight is the best disinfectant") and just plain stupidity.

That was my point. In a legal setting we need transparency because there is no other reason to have confidence in the decision making process. In this setting we have that confidence because the people making the decisions are people that we have other social connections with and other mechanisms by which to judge whether they're corrupt or prone to act maliciously.

> These rules don't apply as strongly to organizations that exist for their own benefit or that of a particular group of shareholders, so for-profit company boards don't have the same need for openness

Why should shareholders have confidence that their board (a set of people with an incentive to act in their own interests) is acting in their interests but the Drupal community not have confidence that their board (a set of people with significantly less incentive to act in their own interests) is acting in their interests? This seems like an odd distinction to draw.