- From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:12:32 +0200
- To: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
- CC: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Heather West <heatherwest@google.com>, "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" <bs3131@att.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FB120E0.4070505@schunter.org>
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 >>> <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 >>> <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 >>> <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 15:13:11 UTC