RE: w3process-ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a Public or Member list [Advisory Board]

It's hard to disagree in principle, but I'm not sure what this means in practice:
- What larger problem is this intended to help solve?  How can we assess whether we succeeded if we adopt this proposal?
- Assuming that people are going to be more frank in their analysis and advice in a private setting than if they could set off a Twitterstorm by saying something politically incorrect, in what circumstances do the benefits of openness outweigh the loss of frankness?
- What counts as "sensitive"?
- What's the relative priority of addressing this issue compared to all the others on the AB agenda?

-----Original Message-----
From: Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2014 7:53 AM
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: w3process-ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a Public or Member list [Advisory Board]

w3process-ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a Public or Member list [Advisory Board]

http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/104


Raised by: Arthur Barstow
On product: Advisory Board

It appears the only e-mail list used by the Advisory Board is a private list that is not accessible to Members nor Public. That list should be used exclusively for "sensitive" information and all other AB e-mail should be moved to a Public list (preferable by me) or at least a Member-only list.

Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 17:33:27 UTC