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

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Arthur Barstow <>

> On 7/8/14 1:32 PM, Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
>> - 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.

I agree with Art's concern here; I think it is quite hard to see what the
AB thinks they do from the outside, and I'd support putting more
discussions in an openly readable forum.

> - 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.

I think there are some discussions that the AB has - around staffing or
strategy, or administrivia - that are easier to have in a non-public forum.
 There are few, however.

> 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?
No.  You should not use public-w3process for non-Process discussions in the
meantime, however, and you should use public-w3process for Process
discussions in the future.  (IMO.)


Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 15:52:20 UTC