Re: Using #waf for June 26 Widgets Call [Was: Agenda for 26 June 2008 Widgets Voice Conference]

Ian, All,

On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:00 PM, ext Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> The IRC channel for this meeting will be [not #webapps] to facilitate
>> removing any Member-confidential material from the IRC log.
> And this is why I object to there being a member-only mailing list.
> I think it's terrible that *even as a fully paid-up member of the  
> group* I
> can't just leave my IRC client logging and get all the IRC activity  
> of the
> group automatically.

Surely you can log any channel you can join.

> What could there possibly be to hide? It's not like people are  
> going to
> say confidential things to each other, the people who would _most  
> benefit_
> from confidential information are the very people on the group who  
> would
> hear it (the competition interested enough to attend the call).

To provide others some context for your e-mail, here is a complete  
copy of this non-technical process issue I sent to the WG's Member- 
confidential list:


As an employee of a W3C Member company and as a co-Chair of the Web  
Apps WG I take the W3C's Member confidentiality requirement very  
seriously. I also fully support all of a meeting's discussions and  
minutes being Publicly available *except* for any portion of the  
meeting that includes Member confidential discussions/disclosures/etc.

It's great to see #webapps being used by the Public (=individuals  
from non-W3C Members) but that has a side-effect that individuals  
that are not W3C Members, and hence not bound by the W3C's  
Confidentiality requirement, could "see" member-confidential  
information in the meeting channel.

The [off] logging mechanism can indeed facilitate removing parts of a  
channel's traffic from being logged (e.g. by krijn's logger).  
However, if a non-W3C Member is logged into the channel, then they  
can still read any confidential information that is entered into IRC  
i.e. there is a confidentiality leak.

Given the requirements to: a) minimize the risk of leaking  
confidential information; b) to be able to record any member- 
confidential discussions that may occur, it seems like holding our  
meeting in a member-confidential channel is a reasonable approach  
(and then to publish all of the non-confidential information to the  
Public). Of course I'm open to other proposal that meet these  

Although you apparently don't feel obligated to comply with the W3C's  
Member Confidentiality requirements [PD-Conf] (otherwise you would  
not have quoted my e-mail above to member-webapps on  the Public  
list), I hope other WG members adhere to their obligation.

Regarding "hiding" above, I want to clarify the types of Member- 
confidential information that is potentially relevant to discuss  
within the WG. In the past (=WAF WG), it was useful for the WG  
members to discuss Member-confidential information such as Charter  
discussions on the [Member-only] AC list and a couple of items from  
[Member-only] Chairs list.

If by "hide" above you mean something like sharing a Member's private/ 
secret information, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss that  
type of information in a WG meeting.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[PD-Conf] < 

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 21:22:26 UTC