[OpenID board] Usage of the Public and Private Board Mailing Lists

Nat Sakimura sakimura at gmail.com
Thu Aug 13 17:34:01 UTC 2009


Things like press release require to be embargoed until it is released. I do
not mean that all the marketing needs to be done in privacy, but some
marketing things like the above needs to be.

As to the committees are concerned, I think they should also be transparent
except in certain cases.

For "easier", I got it. That complication seems to have come form the lack
of process though.
Resorting to private discussion for something like that is not a
solution. Bureaucratic process actually helps in such cases. e.g, under
certain amount, board can chose the contractor at its discretion, about
that, tender has to be put up in public for 2 weeks, etc.

=nat

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:20 AM, David Recordon <david at sixapart.com> wrote:

> 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 <david at 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.messina at 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 at 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 <sakimura at 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.
>>>>
>>>> =nat at Tokyo via iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <david at 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
>>>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> board mailing list
>>>> board at 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
>>> board at lists.openid.net
>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>  _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090814/7a363a7b/attachment.htm>


More information about the board mailing list