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]]

+1 to Chris’s comments about the Process List. The AB is using it, not owning it. One of the reasons we are suing it is that people (AB members) objected to having the process discussion on the AB list

Steve Z.

From: Chris Wilson [mailto:cwilso@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:10 PM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org; 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]]

FWIW: the process list is a) targeted to process discussions, and b) under the guide of a CG, so a contributor has to sign the CLA.  Not sure how much that latter point matters in this context, in other contexts it would make a difference.

I'd prefer NOT to have a member-ab list.  It's either public or private.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com<mailto:art.barstow@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 7/17/14 11:21 AM, GALINDO Virginie wrote:
* 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

* 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.
Your proposal would work for me.

:-)

I suspect the process list would be merged with the public list, or did you have another view ?

That would be fine with me, although I don't have a strong preference.

After 6 months of usage, we may revisit that, as we would be able to see if the member-ab conversation could go public, and we could measure the usefulness interactions we get on public-ab (I mean with person that are not on the member-ab list).

That seems reasonable to me.

(BTW, I was quoted in [1] as having a position of "all things must be public". That's not accurate and I don't think I have ever said that.)

-Thanks, AB

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Jul/0035.html>