W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)

From: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:25:07 +0000
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DC760453-F8B4-45B1-B760-1AAB74AA07DE@att.com>
We could support specific sessions in which non-members are invited for outreach, but not in the context of normal working sessions and certainly not the presence of press in normal working sessions. If the group is to effectively progress on the complex issues at hand, we must have ability to discuss freely the ideas and positions intended to lead us to consensus.

Bryan Sullivan

On May 9, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

Well done Jonathan – thank you for doing this (nicely parsed).

I’m not sure how best to approach the debate, but I’m hopeful we continue to NOT allow press “in the room” for active working sessions and instead shift our efforts to proactive press outreach sessions, with training and prepared statements, and access to those available to speak to the press directly for quotes.  I believe this more controlled approach to press interactions gives us the best of both worlds:  interactive (removes reliance on meeting notes or 2nd hand descriptions) and contained (allows continued free discussion during working sessions).

- Shane

From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 4:00 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Media Access (ACTION-197)

I was tasked on today's call with thinking through alternative media access policies.  Here's a rough outline of design points:

  *   Are media allowed to listen to calls and meetings?
  *   If yes, may they reference their first-hand experience in their reporting?  (If not, they'll have to cite our oh-so-reliable minutes and second-hand descriptions.)
  *   If yes, what degree of first-hand reporting will be permissible?

     *   Quotation

        *   Direct quotes (e.g. "I want a lunch break")
        *   Paraphrasing (e.g. noted that he wanted a lunch break)
        *   Collective sentiment (e.g. several wanted to break for lunch)

     *   Attribution

        *   Identification (e.g. Jonathan Mayer from Stanford said)
        *   Background (e.g. a researcher said)
        *   None (e.g. a participant in the working group said)

     *   Impressions (e.g. he looked hungry)
     *   Procedure (e.g. there was a vote to break for lunch)
     *   Conduct (e.g. he left to get lunch)

  *   Will we provide media briefings?
In selecting which policy we adopt, we have to weigh the concerns of certain industry participants—erroneously negative publicity, corporate media policy, and the attendant chilling effects of both—against the importance of transparency in this process.  Given the broad spectrum of design points, there seems to me a lot of scope for compromise.


Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 14:25:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:48 UTC