RE: Proposal to create Public list for the AB [Was: Re: w3process-ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a Public or Member list [Advisory Board]]

BTW, I seem to still be on this list, which is probably not what you want.  But, since I'm here, I've inserted some comments below... 

BYE! (presuming you will drop me shortly .. ) -- Ann



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 7:42 AM
> To: GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org
> Cc: Revising W3C Process Community Group
> Subject: Re: Proposal to create Public list for the AB [Was: Re: w3process-
> ISSUE-104 (AB-transparency): AB should conduct all non-sensitive e-mail on a
> Public or Member list [Advisory Board]]
> 
> On 7/11/14 10:19 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
> > I am ok to conduct as much as possible AB discussions in open manner
> 
> Alrighty.
> 
> 
> > (who could be against, frankly...).
> 
> I think you might be surprised ;-).
> 
> > But lets try to have a structured approach here :
> > - there is the public process list to deal with process
> > - there is an AB-only list
> > - there will be a ab-public list, the one proposed here
> 
> So, one way to cut it would be to use 3 lists such as:
> 
> * ab - use this existing list but change its scope to only be used for
> *sensitive* topics that are _soooo_ sensitive they can't be discussed
> with Members [I think personnel issues have been cited as such a topic]

Yes, of course, personnel issues.  Although truthfully, not much of that comes to the AB as it is properly a W3M subject.  

There are many other instances, some of which have already been mentioned, which are more effectively discussed in a private setting (room or list).  As Mike previously said -- there are times when AB'ers state a position that might be contrary to that of their employer.  Other times one just wants to say something as openly and frankly as possible, not dance around the bush, and not have to worry about their quote showing up in W3CMemes or other public place.  Many times the Team has 'floated' an idea with the AB, seeking feedback and refinement before it goes 'public'.

I urge caution in all those ways.  It might be useful, Art, to experience the AB for awhile for yourself, before pushing too far with the "all things must be public". It'd be interesting to hear Tantek's observations, a year in -- he who has also pushed hard for public-ness.


> 
> * member-ab - use this for day-to-day AB business such as agendas and
> such. Any Member should be should be able to subscribe to this list.
> This would eliminate the need to cc w3c-ac-forum and provide a good way
> for AC reps to follow and/or contribute to discussions.
> 
> * public-ab - literally, a Public list the Public can use to talk to the
> AB and vice versa.
> 
> Personally, I'd be OK with combining lists #2 and #3 into a Public list
> but I suspect it would be difficult to get AB's consensus on that.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> -AB
> 
> >
> > Before operating such 3-places conversations - which I suspect will be a
> nightmare, but that we can face.
> > 1) I would like that we have a clear process clarifying where we AB
> discussion will happen for each item . My proposal is : all items treated by AB
> are decided during AB-only discussion on which list it is going to be discussed
> (to avoid clash, misunderstanding, duplication...). This clarification should be
> discussed for al topics, except for the process discussions that have migrated
> in the process mailing list.
> > 2) Did we make a decision that the AB-public list would be member-only or
> public ?  sorry if I missed something here...
> >
> > Opinion ? Complementary information ?
> >  From the public process people, from the AB...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Virginie Galindo
> > gemalto
> >
> >
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 16:26:40 UTC