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

On 7/8/14 1:32 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
> It's hard to disagree in principle, but I'm not sure what this means in practice:
> - What larger problem is this intended to help solve?  How can we assess whether we succeeded if we adopt this proposal?

I think this would help address the three topics in 
as well as some issues like <> 
and <>.

> - 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?

The AB's deliberations are pretty much a "black hole" for the Public as 
well as for Members. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to get 
qualified candidates to run for open positions and IMHO, that is bad for 
the Web and the Consortium.

> - What counts as "sensitive"?

Although I have only seen AB e-mail for a few weeks, I don't recall 
anything that could not be Public. In fact, most of the e-mail I have 
seen on the AB list is "revisionist history" i.e. meeting participants 
requesting the meeting record be changed :-).

> - What's the relative priority of addressing this issue compared to all the others on the AB agenda?

Indeed we need to ask the Public and Members. I've already asked the 
Members and besides one tweet, I haven't yet asked the Public. The later 
would be easier if there was an agreed list to gather input from the 
Public. I'll use public-w3process but perhaps we should just create 
public-ab now and use it. Do any AB members object to creating that list?


Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 12:10:27 UTC