FWIW: the process list is a) targeted to process discussions, and b) under the guide of a CG, so a contributor has to sign the CLA. Not sure how much that latter point matters in this context, in other contexts it would make a difference. I'd prefer NOT to have a member-ab list. It's either public or private. On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/17/14 11:21 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote: > >> * 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 >>> >>> * 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. >>> >> Your proposal would work for me. >> > > :-) > > > I suspect the process list would be merged with the public list, or did >> you have another view ? >> > > That would be fine with me, although I don't have a strong preference. > > > After 6 months of usage, we may revisit that, as we would be able to see >> if the member-ab conversation could go public, and we could measure the >> usefulness interactions we get on public-ab (I mean with person that are >> not on the member-ab list). >> > > That seems reasonable to me. > > (BTW, I was quoted in [1] as having a position of "all things must be > public". That's not accurate and I don't think I have ever said that.) > > -Thanks, AB > > [1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/ > 2014Jul/0035.html> > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 19:10:19 UTC