On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 4:25 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > Like Steve, these are my personal thoughts, and do not reflect the opinion > of > my employer at this time. > > Alex Russell wrote: > > > The only group that should be allowed to have a hidden > > tracker/list is, perhaps, the AB, and I question even > > that sometimes. Member-only space is a bug. In fact, > > new groups (to my mind) shouldn't be given the option > > of having member-only space systems except by application > > and an explicit exemption. > > Steve Faulkner wrote: > > > Public-PF mailing list [1]: allow non PF members to post to > > the list. We have had situations in the past where members > > of the TAG (and other working groups) have been unable to > > respond to technical discussion occurring on the public PF > > list. This has lead to loss of technical input on important > > accessibility related developments. > > <snip> > > > PF meeting minutes: remove the unnecessary step of scrubbing the > > minutes and only making them public after a period of time, it > > is in general a waste of WG member and W3C staff time. If on the > > rare occasion the meetings contain sensitive information ask those > > at the meeting if they request an opportunity to scrub prior to release. > > > > I too favor the removal of member-space classification of the work done by > PF > (APA). As a regular attendee of the Wednesday PF calls, in practice I've > rarely heard any comments or issues that would be of such a sensitive > nature > that delaying the publication of the minutes a week to allow for > "scrubbing" > seems to be more of an impediment than a benefit. While we all (I think) > can > appreciate that the legal landscape around accessibility conformance is > still > complex (as I understand it, one of the reasons why PF is still in > member-space), it has also been my experience that on the rare occasion > when > certain discussion points related to this type of sensitivity arise, there > has > been a request for "light minuting". (A reasonable request, and one that > appears to have always been honored by participants present on the > call/meeting) > > Perhaps, as part of the Charter, there could instead be a recognition that > this WG can, when required, go "in-camera"[1] at the direction/discretion > of > the Chair, but under most circumstances there does not appear to be an > over-arching need to have the entire meeting and minutes starting at that > point, nor for that matter the mailing list. I'm not sure that > discretionary > confidentiality is a "bug", but I do think that transparency is superior to > secrecy 99 times out of 100. > Discretionary confidentiality leads to over-protection for all the wrong reasons. If the need is truly so little, then the bar should be high. > I support all of Steve's other suggestions as positive steps forward. > > JF > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera > > "Generally, in-camera describes court cases, parts of it, or > process where > the public and press are not allowed to observe the procedure or process... > In-camera can also describe closed board meetings that cover information > not > recorded in the minutes or divulged to the public. Such sessions may > discuss > personnel, financial, or other sensitive decisions that must be kept secret > (e.g., a proposed merger or strategic change the organization does not want > disclosed to competitors)." > > >Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 19:01:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:15 UTC