[OpenID board] Use of board-private list (Was: Re: Trademark problem?)

Chris Messina chris.messina at gmail.com
Thu Dec 4 06:14:24 UTC 2008


I'll ask around and see what I can find.
In the meantime, this page from the GSoC looks worth emulating:

http://groups.google.com/group/google-summer-of-code-announce/web/guide-to-program-mailing-lists

Chris

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM, David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com>wrote:

> Do you have such boilerplate guidelines that we could adopt in our bylaws?
> --David
>
> On Dec 2, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Chris Messina wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk>wrote:
>
>> Chris Messina wrote:
>> >
>> > This present case is mild on the whole, and represents a good case where
>> > any potential legal actions should be discussed in confidence. I don't
>> > disagree with that. But bounding the kinds of conversation that take
>> > place on the private list to a specific set of topics or items which
>> > match a public set of criteria is desirable, if it's not already been
>> done.
>> >
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> However, I agree that it would be good to make public exactly what
>> justifications are allowed and ensure that any private conversations fit
>> into one of these categories.
>
>
> I've amended the page on the fan wiki with this statement. That helps to
> explain current practice; it does not, however, constitute an official or
> regular policy that might set a framework for what falls within the realm of
> necessarily private.
>
> My intention is not force any uncomfortable situation, simply to arrive at
> clarity and transparency so that questions in the future can be treated in
> an expected and normal way. In other words, the original trademark
> conversation might have been handled in a uniform way had there been a
> stated policy governing the discussion of legal concerns.
>
> There is nothing the OIDF bylaws that addresses matters like this, even as
> a conventional approach to dealing with sensitive matters. Surely we could
> borrow and tweak some existing boilerplate guidelines having to do with such
> issues?
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Citizen-Participant &
>  Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
> This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
 Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20081203/df497575/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list