I disagree. I think they are resorting to private list because they are not sure if they can talk that in public (e.g., due to NDA constraint etc.) Having a rigid process up front will remove that uncertainty and expedite the process.
=nat On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote: > Adding more bureaucracy will definitely not help things. I imagine that > people are resorting to the private list because they want to limit > discussion and avoid protracted squabbling. > What would be better would be to develop a set of community guidelines that > would help non-board-members more effectively participate in the bo...@list. > That is, if you want to contribute to the board list, you should be > talking about something real or concrete, and not abstract or theoretical > (just for one example). > > If the tool that we have for convening dialog (namely the public mailing > lists) are not serving people's needs, and they're resorting to other > channels, we should try to understand what about the current tool is failing > them — rather than trying to introduce new rules that require enforcement > and therefore some kind of new discipline. > > We started writing up a document for this purpose: > > http://wiki.openid.net/board-private > > It needs to be expanded, and we need to continually harass those who choose > not to abide it — if indeed there is no other excuse for them resorting to > the private list other than laziness or ... force of "habit". > > Chris > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Nat <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What about making the motion to conduct the conversation in private list >> and only when accepted can proceed. >> >> So the thread in private list always start from a motion. It should >> include the sunset for the thread as well. >> >> =...@tokyo via iPhone >> >> >> On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <da...@sixapart.com> wrote: >> >> While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election almost >>> a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back into a pattern >>> of using the board-private mailing list in many situations where it is >>> unnecessary to do so. I would like to see us discuss our existing >>> board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private) in an >>> upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately have the >>> current Board ratify an appropriate policy. Not only is this important to >>> myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple times over a lack >>> of transparency within the Foundation. >>> >>> The current policy states: >>> >>>> The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for conducting >>>> certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to the responsibilities >>>> of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The list should be used sparingly >>>> and only under certain circumstances. >>>> >>>> New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and >>>> ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public. The >>>> work >>>> to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-private list. >>>> >>>> Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations: >>>> >>>> • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and >>>> negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so public >>>> disclosure is inappropriate. >>>> • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually >>>> want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining the >>>> OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they want to >>>> control the disclosure of. >>>> These conversations are examples that should be kept to public mailing >>>> lists: >>>> >>>> • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired >>>> • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board >>>> member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it) >>>> Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that everything >>>> sent to the private list must begin with a justification for it being >>>> private. Other board members can and often do reject these justifications >>>> and the discussions move to the public list." >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks, >>> --David >>> _______________________________________________ >>> board mailing list >>> bo...@lists.openid.net >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> bo...@lists.openid.net >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Open Web Advocate > > Personal: http://factoryjoe.com > Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina > > Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com > Diso Project: http://diso-project.org > OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net > > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > bo...@lists.openid.net > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list bo...@lists.openid.net http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
