> On Apr 11, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 2:38 PM, [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
> 2. The issue of whether and how to open up the Forum to more voices
> comes up often. I have said multiple times – I would not oppose, and might
> even favor, a new email address where anyone in the world could post on
> issues before us – so long as someone volunteers to moderate the postings and
> exclude trolls, etc. And I would want to keep this list separate from the
> current management@ (which deals with logistics issues among members) and
> separate from the public@ list (which I think requires signing the IPR and
> becoming an Associate Member to have posting rights). I think many of the
> blogging sites run by others suffer from too many postings from people with
> strong opinion but who are not directly affected by the subject at hand, who
> sometimes drown out other voices, and I wouldn’t want that to happen with
> what we already have (which seems a pretty efficient method for us to do our
> business). But a third email address for an open list that someone
> volunteers to moderate could be useful.
>
> Interested Parties can participate on the list. That's the whole point of
> this concern about Associate Members vs Interested Parties - interested
> parties CAN fully participate on the list(s), as I pointed out earlier on the
> list, and was previously raised on the call. See the Bylaws v 1.4 and compare
> Sections 3.1 with 3.2
>
> All of the rights are the same, with two notable exceptions:
> 1) Interested parties cannot see or participate the management@ list
> 2) Interested Parties can't just show up at meetings / on calls - they have
> to be invited by the Chair.
I would disagree with your assessment. I don’t see anything allowing an
associate member to post to the public list or participate in working groups.
This is reinforced by 5.2 "Forum Members and Interested Parties may post to the
Public Mail List in compliance with these Bylaws. Anyone else is allowed to
subscribe to and receive messages posted to the Public Mail List”.
This is why Amazon requested to be admitted/recognized as both an Interested
Party and Associate Member when submitting the signed IPR agreement.
> I argue that 1 is a good thing; I think there is a bias towards wanting to
> conduct business in secret, especially as shown by the discussions of SHA-1,
> and I think that harms, rather than helps, the ecosystem. Full members today
> already struggle in making sure that substantive technical discussions happen
> on the correct (public) list and don't occur on the management@ list during
> the discussion of draft minutes.
>
> And as I tried to explain in my previous message, 2 is also arguably a good
> thing.
>
> So if your concern is "Keep out Interested Parties" - that ship has already
> sailed. Anyone who wants to join as an Interested Party can. And we've
> already discussed (and accepted and acknowledged) that members can forward
> messages on behalf of the 'general public' to the public@ list.
Given that F2F meetings only happen three times a year and the management list
is primarily used for administrative coordination, I am inclined to agree with
Ryan. Other than non-member CAs, it would probably make the most sense to have
entities become Interested Parties and have them speak up if they want to join
the F2F meetings. We have already had concerns about space for F2F meetings,
so it would seem that adding automatic attendees is only going to make this
worse.
Thanks,
Peter
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
