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

Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 00:20:22 +0200
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>
Message-ID: <2665087.fUmt9vDes2@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
Jonathan, 

press access to W3C teleconferences is a sensitive issue. If we can not come 
to an agreement, I will involve W3C management and Communications 
Department. It went wrong so many times in the past that I want us to be 
careful. 

Rigo

On Monday 14 May 2012 13:17:54 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> Shane,
> 
> I'd like to fully map out the zone of compromise before declaring an
> impasse.  I understand the concerns you and others have raised with
> unrestricted press access.  Could you please explain the realistic
> challenges you foresee with a no-direct-quotes policy and other
> compromise policies?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
> 
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I’ve already expressed my concerns with direct participation of the
> > press and have offered up alternatives that I believe meet our
> > collective objectives.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At this point it appears we have a large portion of the Working Group
> > asking that we not move forward with press participation in meetings. 
> > With that in mind, is this a valid option any longer or do we drop it
> > at this point?  I’m assuming we’d want broad (not total) consensus
> > prior to including press directly and that doesn’t appear possible.  I
> > recommend we drop this discussion and instead focus our efforts on
> > designing a press event that would provide the detailed understanding
> > of the working group’s efforts and open issues in front of us.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > - Shane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:53 PM
> > To: Shane Wiley
> > Cc: Matthias Schunter; JC Cannon; Heather West; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L;
> > public-tracking@w3.org (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Re:
> > Media Access (ACTION-197)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Shane,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Could you please explain why you are uncomfortable with a
> > no-direct-quotes policy?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Jonathan
> > 
> > On Monday, May 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> > > Matthias,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Many in the Working Group are NOT comfortable with the proposed policy
> > > from Jonathan.  How should we work to resolve this?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Shane
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From: Matthias Schunter [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:13 AM
> > > To: Jonathan Mayer
> > > Cc: JC Cannon; Heather West; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Shane Wiley;
> > > public-tracking@w3.org (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Re:
> > > Media Access (ACTION-197)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Folks,
> > > 
> > > I am OK with this policy. However, I would like to mandate that press
> > > participants identify themselves when joining a call and that their
> > > presence is known to all attendees.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > matthias
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 14/05/2012 07:41, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > JC,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's quite common for a forum to limit how first-hand impressions may
> > > be used in reporting.  Perhaps the best-known example is the Chatham
> > > House Rule.  The rationale is exactly what we're discussing: a
> > > balance between the benefits of transparency and unencumbered
> > > dialogue.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jonathan
> > > 
> > > On Sunday, May 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
> > > > I say no. If they are not permitted to take quotes what’s the point?
> > > > I would not be comfortable with press participation.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > JC
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> > > > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:31 PM
> > > > To: Heather West
> > > > Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org
> > > > (mailto:public-tracking@w3.org) Subject: Re: Media Access
> > > > (ACTION-197)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I don't believe the mere addition of press briefings would do much
> > > > to advance the group's transparency.  We've all been to press
> > > > conferences.  They're about regurgitating talking points and
> > > > jockeying for positive spin.  If we want accurate, detailed
> > > > coverage and a heightened imprimatur of legitimacy, we need to
> > > > allow media into the room.  There is no substitute for first-hand
> > > > impressions.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > That said, I'm very sensitive to the concerns Shane, Bryan, and
> > > > Heather have raised about the chilling effects associated with a
> > > > press policy of direct quotation and identifying attribution. 
> > > > Industry participants should not be compelled to negotiate in the
> > > > shadow of a misspoken sentence potentially making headlines
> > > > verbatim.  My aim in breaking out our options on quotation,
> > > > attribution, and other media matters was to start a conversation
> > > > about how we can balance the tremendous transparency advantages of
> > > > having the press in the room against the potential for chilling our
> > > > discussions.  Perhaps there is no balance to be struck.  But before
> > > > leaping to that conclusion, we should give compromise solutions
> > > > some real thought.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > To make things more concrete, here's a proposal: What would
> > > > participants think of a policy where press are allowed in, but they
> > > > cannot use direct quotes?  Are there conversations we've had that
> > > > wouldn't have happened if press were in the room with this policy?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Jonathan
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday, May 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Heather West wrote:
> > > > > I think that using this working group as a platform for press is
> > > > > harmful to the goal of the group: coming to consensus within the
> > > > > group. While we all want our end product to have a transparent
> > > > > process, the more that folks direct their remarks towards
> > > > > reporters instead of the group, the less will get done.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd be very surprised if a reporter with tons of stories to write
> > > > > had the time to actually sit through all these calls to glean
> > > > > context, so structuring sessions for press makes sense. I support
> > > > > Shane's compromise of actively engaging the press, in a
> > > > > structured way, and continuing to have a relatively well-defined
> > > > > group on the calls and in the meetings. I think Bryan's idea is
> > > > > similar, and also makes sense.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:25 PM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3131@att.com
> > > > > (mailto:bs3131@att.com)> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Bryan Sullivan
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On May 9, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com
> > > > > (mailto: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)<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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > 
> > > > > Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com
> > > > > (mailto:heatherwest@google.com) | 202-643-6381
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 22:21:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:28 UTC