Re: Media Access (ACTION-197)

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> 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>> 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.
>
> Jonathan
>
>


-- 

Heather West | Google Policy | heatherwest@google.com | 202-643-6381