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]]

My preference would still be to remove member-ab and use public-ab, because
I believe otherwise public-ab will go largely unused.  But I approve of the
rest.  (Incidentally, the "public" can speak on public-ab, but you would
need to sign the CLA and join the revising-process CG to speak on
public-w3process, I believe.)


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Virginie -
>
> As an AC rep and promoter of greater openness and transparency, this looks
> good to me.
>
> On 18 Jul 2014, at 11:15, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Sorry for raising that confusing point. I forgot that the public process
> mailing list was associated with the CG - as I am on it without having
> subscribed to the CG.
> > So this makes the following segmentation :
> >
> > * 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. ß that one challenged by
> Chris
>
> On the topic of whether-or-not to have a member list: our approach to this
> in the TAG is that we do have a member list and a public list, but we
> conduct all discussions on the public list. The member list can still be a
> useful tool to share the occasional sensitive “heads up” topic (but not to
> conduct discussion on such a topic), or (its main use) sharing logistics
> information about upcoming meetings, dinners out at f2f meetings and other
> administrivia which sometimes contains private information (e.g.
> individuals' phone numbers) and thus would not be appropriate on the public
> list.
>
> Dan
>
> > * public-ab - literally, a Public list the Public can use to talk to the
> AB and vice versa.
> >
> > * public-process - use the list to talk W3C process revision.
> >
> > AB members will be playing with 4 communication channels, at best 3, if
> we drop the member-ab list as suggested by Chris…
> > AC rep will have to monitor/speak on 3, at best 2…
> > Public will be able to monitor/speak on 2.
> >
> > How rational do you think it is ?
> >
> > Virginie
> >
> >
> > From: Stephen Zilles [mailto:szilles@adobe.com]
> > Sent: vendredi 18 juillet 2014 02:10
> > To: Chris Wilson; 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]]
> >
> > +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>
> 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
> transmitted virus.
>
>