Ben Rockwood wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > >> Ben Rockwood wrote: >> >> >>> Item 4: Main Motion (benr03), language follows: 'In the best interest of >>> full disclosure and transparency with the community at large which we >>> represent; I resolve that the ogb-private email list be opened to public >>> view; existing archived messages created prior to the adoption of this >>> resolution shall be exempt as the authors interacted without the >>> expectation of public review. The archive shall, therefore, be >>> destroyed and henceforth public.' >>> >>> >> If you're going to make it public, why not just destroy it? What's the >> purpose of a public ogb-private list separate from ogb-discuss or the >> previously discussed ogb-business? >> >> > > Should the above motion fail, that would be the next step. The result > is the same, where then just debating the most appropriate name for the > list, "business" or "internal" or whatever instead of "private". I'm > fine with that. If others agree I'll modify my motion to include such a > naming change. > > benr. > _______________________________________________ > Ben, I think your proposal actually requires changes to sections 6.7 (for the OGB) and 7.10 (for CG's) of the constitution.
Doug
