- From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:01:25 -0700
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53C97D15.1020303@linux.intel.com>
On 2014-07-18 09:31, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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.) People don't have to sign the CLA and join the CG to post to public-w3process. From the list of mail lists: "public-w3process <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/>" "This is the public mailing list for the Revising W3C Process Community Group <http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/>. Anyone may read or write to this list. " There's (obviously) no point in having to sign the CLA to join a CG that doesn't produce specs (since the CLA is about contributions to specs). That's to be fixed at some point. If a CG didn't have to involve agreeing to patent licensing, a single CG with a couple of mail lists may be nice just to keep it in one place. (e.g. a list for detailed process discussions and another for more general topics including major decisions for process). > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 3:54 AM, Daniel Appelquist > <appelquist@gmail.com <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto:szilles@adobe.com>] > > Sent: vendredi 18 juillet 2014 02:10 > > To: Chris Wilson; Arthur Barstow > > Cc: GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org <mailto: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 > <mailto:cwilso@google.com>] > > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:10 PM > > To: Arthur Barstow > > Cc: GALINDO Virginie; ab@w3.org <mailto: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> > > > > > > > > > > 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. > >
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 20:01:55 UTC