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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>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 >> <[email protected]>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 >>> bo...@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 <[email protected]> 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. >>>> >>>> =...@tokyo via iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> board mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> http://www.sakimura.org/en/ >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board >> >> > > > -- > Nat Sakimura (=nat) > http://www.sakimura.org/en/ > > > -- Nat Sakimura (=nat) http://www.sakimura.org/en/
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board
