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]]

* I think we don’t need 4 lists, and it’s confusing.
* we should inform the AC of discussions at the appropriate time, and not rely on them subscribing to a list

I would say we need only two for the AB:

ab-confidential
ab-member

where, as you say, any member can send to, receive, or read the archives of the latter, and most business is there (until we get trolled).  Are there any cases where AB discussions, per se, should be open to the general public?  It’s pretty rare for the general public to be interested in the internals of governance, and also rare for organizations to expose their governance discussions.

On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:15 , 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
> 
> * 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.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 23:25:27 UTC