[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

[Gervase Markham]

On 31/10/17 22:45, Virginia Fournier wrote:
> There was no intent to make anything less transparent.  Rather, the
> intent was to let the WGs decide their own methods of communication
> rather than micromanaging it and telling them what they have to use.
>  Does this seem ok?  Is there some broader language that you’d be ok with?

My original proposal for this was the list of approved methods of
communication. If we can't do that, then we definitely need something
which says that communications methods need to be transparent.
Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop a WG setting up a closed
mailing list and using it, and that would be a major step backwards for
CAB Forum transparency.

Can you suggest a way that we can ensure that communications methods are
open and transparent, without micromanaging?

Gerv