Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> Item 4: Main Motion (benr03), language follows: 'In the best interest of >> full disclosure and transparency with the community at large which we >> represent; I resolve that the ogb-private email list be opened to public >> view; existing archived messages created prior to the adoption of this >> resolution shall be exempt as the authors interacted without the >> expectation of public review. The archive shall, therefore, be >> destroyed and henceforth public.' >> > > If you're going to make it public, why not just destroy it? What's the > purpose of a public ogb-private list separate from ogb-discuss or the > previously discussed ogb-business? >
Should the above motion fail, that would be the next step. The result is the same, where then just debating the most appropriate name for the list, "business" or "internal" or whatever instead of "private". I'm fine with that. If others agree I'll modify my motion to include such a naming change. benr.
