Why does marketing need to be discussed in private? Specific events
(FooCo joins the Foundation) should be worked on in private, but in
that case private might not mean the Board but rather a marketing
committee made up of a variety of members of the Foundation.
What I meant by "easier" was not about it being safer, but that in the
past seemingly simple discussions have become incredibly complex when
discussed on the public list. A specific example was when we were
looking to spend $10,000 on hosting infrastructure at the OSU OSL
which should not have been an issue. Members of this list essentially
stopped the process for a few months.
So it's "easier" to avoid possible situations like this by using the
private list, but in my mind certainly not better or right.
--David
On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
One of the reason for "easier" is to fall on the safer side, and
that is a big factor, IMHO.
If they do not want the transparency, that is a big issue to deal
with, but I am hoping that it is not the case... Am I too optimistic?
I agree that there are very few things that we need to conduct in
privacy.
The recent development we have been working were one of the exception.
Marketing things would be another.
Board meeting should also be open that anyone should be able to call
in, though probably not allowed to speak :-)
In such an environment, we need a procedure to move into private mode.
It is usually an motion.
=nat
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:57 AM, David Recordon <da...@sixapart.com>
wrote:
I actually agree with Chris. I think that many people choose the
private list because it's "easier" for a variety of reasons. We
should identify those reasons and work to resolve them. Our default
should be public and we have remarkably few (if any) NDAs to deal
with.
I also agree that having a simple process to move something started
on the private list to the public one makes sense.
--David
On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:
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 board@ 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
_______________________________________________
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
