RE: Proposal to create Public list for the AB [Was: Re: w3process-ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a Public or Member list [Advisory Board]]

Clarification (thanks to Jeff, Coralie and Art who are all faster than I) -- I am not on the AB list.  I didn't realize Art cc'd the Process list in a clever way.

Bye again -- Ann 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassetti, Ann
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 9:26 AM
> To: Arthur Barstow; GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org
> Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: RE: Proposal to create Public list for the AB [Was: Re: w3process-
> ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a
> Public or Member list [Advisory Board]]
> 
> BTW, I seem to still be on this list, which is probably not what you want.  But,
> since I'm here, I've inserted some comments below...
> 
> BYE! (presuming you will drop me shortly .. ) -- Ann
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 7:42 AM
> > To: GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org
> > Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> > Subject: Re: Proposal to create Public list for the AB [Was: Re: w3process-
> > ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on
> a
> > Public or Member list [Advisory Board]]
> >
> > On 7/11/14 10:19 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> > > I am ok to conduct as much as possible AB discussions in open manner
> >
> > Alrighty.
> >
> >
> > > (who could be against, frankly...).
> >
> > I think you might be surprised ;-).
> >
> > > But lets try to have a structured approach here :
> > > - there is the public process list to deal with process
> > > - there is an AB-only list
> > > - there will be a ab-public list, the one proposed here
> >
> > So, one way to cut it would be to use 3 lists such as:
> >
> > * ab - use this existing list but change its scope to only be used for
> > *sensitive* topics that are _soooo_ sensitive they can't be discussed
> > with Members [I think personnel issues have been cited as such a topic]
> 
> Yes, of course, personnel issues.  Although truthfully, not much of that
> comes to the AB as it is properly a W3M subject.
> 
> There are many other instances, some of which have already been
> mentioned, which are more effectively discussed in a private setting (room
> or list).  As Mike previously said -- there are times when AB'ers state a
> position that might be contrary to that of their employer.  Other times one
> just wants to say something as openly and frankly as possible, not dance
> around the bush, and not have to worry about their quote showing up in
> W3CMemes or other public place.  Many times the Team has 'floated' an idea
> with the AB, seeking feedback and refinement before it goes 'public'.
> 
> I urge caution in all those ways.  It might be useful, Art, to experience the AB
> for awhile for yourself, before pushing too far with the "all things must be
> public". It'd be interesting to hear Tantek's observations, a year in -- he who
> has also pushed hard for public-ness.
> 
> 
> >
> > * member-ab - use this for day-to-day AB business such as agendas and
> > such. Any Member should be should be able to subscribe to this list.
> > This would eliminate the need to cc w3c-ac-forum and provide a good way
> > for AC reps to follow and/or contribute to discussions.
> >
> > * public-ab - literally, a Public list the Public can use to talk to the
> > AB and vice versa.
> >
> > Personally, I'd be OK with combining lists #2 and #3 into a Public list
> > but I suspect it would be difficult to get AB's consensus on that.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > -AB
> >
> > >
> > > Before operating such 3-places conversations - which I suspect will be a
> > nightmare, but that we can face.
> > > 1) I would like that we have a clear process clarifying where we AB
> > discussion will happen for each item . My proposal is : all items treated by
> AB
> > are decided during AB-only discussion on which list it is going to be
> discussed
> > (to avoid clash, misunderstanding, duplication...). This clarification should
> be
> > discussed for al topics, except for the process discussions that have
> migrated
> > in the process mailing list.
> > > 2) Did we make a decision that the AB-public list would be member-only
> or
> > public ?  sorry if I missed something here...
> > >
> > > Opinion ? Complementary information ?
> > >  From the public process people, from the AB...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Virginie Galindo
> > > gemalto
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 16:46:10 UTC