[OpenID board] Usage of the Public and Private Board Mailing Lists
David Recordon
david at sixapart.com
Thu Aug 13 17:20:07 UTC 2009
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@ 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20090813/9854035b/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the board
mailing list