Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion"):
>> I feel like this wording comes across as sacrificing too much in the
>> openness/transparency of the tech committee's discussions. Perhaps
>> something along the following would be better?
>>
>> Discussion, draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members of
>> the committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public
>> discussion [-list.-] {+list to the maximum extent possible. There are
>> however certain circumstances that require private deliberation, which
>> is permissable, but such actions should be kept to a minimum.+} There
>> is no separate secretary for the Committee.
>
> This proposed wording has two bugs:
>
> - it suggests that the TC doing difficult work that needs private
> discussion (eg, dealing with interpersonal problems, mediation,
> etc.) should be `kept to a minimum'.
Hopefully the project is dealing with most of those without the
intervention of the tech committee. Thus such situations should be
minimal.
> - conversely it permits private decisionmaking!
Agreed. That is an issue. Getting a little long, but how about:
[-Discussion, draft resolutions-]{+Discussion by members of the
committee are made public on the Technical Committee public discussion
list to the maximum extent possible. There are however certain
circumstances that require private deliberation, which is permissable,
but such actions will be kept to a minimum. Private discussions will
only take place via email,+} and {+Subject lines associate with each
private mail will be sent to the public mailing list.
Draft resolutions,+} amendments, and votes by members of the
[-committee, are-] {+committee will be+} made public on the Technical
Committee public discussion list.
There is no separate secretary for the Committee.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: