[cabfpub] Ballot 110 - Motion to Adopt Version 1.1 of the Bylaws

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/01/14 02:40, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
>     3) Why the removal of the transparency requirements in Section 5.2
>     for WGs? This is not at all desirable - although the modifications
>     to Section 5.2(c) are.____
> 
>     BTW:  The current language requires that EVERYTHING (even things
>     that are not currently being done, like the creation of agendas and
>     minutes for working groups) be posted to the public list – for some
>     people, the amount of email traffic on the public list is already
>     bad.  Read Section 5.2(e) where “important” working group updates
>     are addressed.  Otherwise, as the responsible executive interpreting
>     the bylaws I will have to start telling everyone that they must
>     prepare agendas and minutes and that all emails and every single
>     interim draft, agenda and all minutes will now need to be posted to
>     the public list, and then we’ll just eliminate the WG lists. 
> 
> I for one would welcome the enhanced transparency, and see it as a
> feature, even as I'm already deluged in e-mail.

Is it the case that the working group lists are public? I thought it
was. (If it's not, would that be an alternative fix?) If so, then having
them post stuff to the public list is a matter of notification, not
transparency. And I think we need to get a balance where
not-directly-involved members are informed about the general goings-on,
but are not given everything - otherwise, there'd be no point in having
working group lists at all.

I'm very happy for the Code Signing Working Group to get on with it
without being told about every idea and every document change - after
all, once they have something to vote on, it comes back to the main list
and they explain why they want it and we need to agree in the normal manner.

Gerv