On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.) -C
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 15:52:20 UTC