[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

[Gervase Markham]

On 02/11/17 17:47, Virginia Fournier wrote:
> Will people know what “a similar level of transparency” to the Public Mail List” will mean?  

It's not been a problem so far. This is why reusing the current text is
a good idea.

> Is it up to the Working Group to make that determination?

In the past, having a documented norm has meant that when it doesn't
happen, someone just asks for it to be changed, and it is.

> Or could someone come in and say “Hey, I see you’re using GitHub - that’s not transparent enough because it requires me to have an account and a password, and I don’t want to do that.  

Github does not require a username and password to view projects, AFAIK.
If some mechanism required a username and password to view the archives
but anyone could get one using a throwaway email address, that would
probably be transparent enough. However, I don't know of any such mechanism.

Transparency != participation; there are different rules for participation.

Gerv