Re: Suggestions for opening up PF

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)."
>
>
>