Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Michael Gilbert writes ("Re: Draft GR for permitting private discussion"):
> Just to clarify, that is not my perspective.  Like I said in the
> following sentence,
> 
>   The importance of a more stringent wording (I think) is to make it clear to
>   project members that the committee will only be using this power in the
>   most sensitive of situations, rather than all the time.

I think the key difference between us is this: you seem to be arguing
that the wording discouraging or limiting the TC's private
conversations should be normative - that is, that the text should
somehow say that under some vaguely specified situations, the TC would
be actually forbidden from having the conversation in private.

Whereas I think that this text should be in <cite> - ie it should be
rationale and explanation, but not grounds for anyone to assert that
the TC had somehow violated the constitution and therefore that a
decision was invalid, or something.

My suggestion was this:

        [+<cite>The Technical Committee is encouraged to
        hold discussions in public where feasible.</cite>+]

But I'm happy to see a stronger wording:

        [+<cite>The Technical Committee should limit private
        discussions to situations where holding the conversation in
        public would be infeasible or unconstructive.</cite>+]

Or another way to do it would be to explicitly state that it's the
TC's opinion that matters:

        Draft resolutions and amendments, and votes by members of the
	committee, are made public on the Technical Committee public
	discussion list.

        Discussions will also be held in public unless it is
        essential, in the view of the members of the Committee, to do
        otherwise.

The problem with this is that it sounds like the TC might decide to
retrospectively publish emails sent to it privately, which I think
would be wrong.

Ian.