[cabf_governance] Ballot 206 comments

[Virginia Fournier]

Hi Gerv,

It looks like one of your comments remains to be addressed, this one:

* The draft removes the requirement that Working Group mailing lists "must

be managed in the same fashion as the Public Mail List". This requirement,

although perhaps needing generalization, is an important part of the Forum's

transparency, and its loss is a significant matter.

How can it be best reinstated such that it applies appropriately to the

means of communication employed by Working Groups?

>> Hold for Virginia’s comments and resolution with Gerv.

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?

Best regards,

Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
 Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ vmf at apple.com <mailto:vmf at apple.com>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cabforum.org/pipermail/govreform/attachments/20171031/79c34ba3/attachment-0001.html>