Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Ben Rockwood wrote:
What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
Is it
A) We don't trust the OGB ...,
B) We want to force the OGB to discuss certain topics in
public that are currently being discussed in private
(see "A" above),
C) We don't value the needs of other parties to discuss
sensitive things with us in a more controlled/less
exposed forum,
D) We don't wish to deal with all the complexities that
having a private discussion implies,
E) We aren't transparent enough (though, see "A" above),
or
F) Some other reason:_______
We seem to have glommed onto "get rid of OGB-Private" as
the only solution - maybe a better one would be to simply
articulate (and thus constrain) its proper usage:
The ogb-private discussion list exists to allow
limited term private discussions among the OGB members
about sensitive matters before such discussions are
brought to the attention of the Membership. The
following policy details its proper use:
It is intended to be used only for the following
reasons [xxx]
It is intended to be a short term forum; any
private discussions must be disclosed at [the next?,
the 2nd?] regularly scheduled weekly OGB meeting.
It gets deleted on a trailing XX month basis,
The conversations on the alias are considered
Confidential, and shall not be disclosed to others
unless all parties to the conversation agree in
advance to specific disclosures.
... etc ...
-John
