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

On 7/8/2014 8:42 PM, Nottingham, Mark wrote:
> On 9 Jul 2014, at 3:32 am, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> It's hard to disagree in principle,
> You seem to be having a good go at it :)
>
>> but I'm not sure what this means in practice:
>> - What larger problem is this intended to help solve?
> The W3C appearing to be a closed shop

This is a problem worth solving.

>   that's out of touch with the "real" Web.

I'd like to understand better what this means.  Everyone can improve and 
we are no exception.  But I don't understand what you mean when you say 
that we are out of touch with the "real" web.  And if the statement is 
true that sounds like a deeper problem than just having the AB work in 
the open.  In your view, what would put us in better touch with the 
"real" web?

>
>> How can we assess whether we succeeded if we adopt this proposal?
> The W3C still exists in ten years.
>
>> - 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?
> Case-by-case
>
>> - What counts as "sensitive"?
> Up to personal judgement + legal advice received
>
>> - What's the relative priority of addressing this issue compared to all the others on the AB agenda?
> Priority alone is an inappropriate measure; if the effort to decide in enact it is trivial, it can be very low priority and still easily accomplished.
>
> Having said that, hopefully the upcoming survey will give the AB a good feel for its priority.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>> -----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.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Mark Nottingham    mnot@akamai.com    https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 01:29:32 UTC