Usage of the Public and Private Board Mailing Lists

[David Recordon]

While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election  
almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back  
into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many  
situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us  
discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private 
) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately  
have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not only is this  
important to myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple  
times over a lack of transparency within the Foundation.

The current policy states:

> The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for  
> conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to  
> the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The  
> list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.
>
> New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and  
> ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public.  
> The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-
> private list.
>
> Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:
>
> • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting  
> and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else,  
> so public disclosure is inappropriate.
> • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will  
> usually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure  
> of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger  
> strategy that they want to control the disclosure of.
> These conversations are examples that should be kept to public  
> mailing lists:
>
> • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
> • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp.  
> board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok  
> with it)
> Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that  
> everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification  
> for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject  
> these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."
>

Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

[Chris Messina]

I favor more openness and use of the public board list.

It would be interesting, David, if you could run the script that you previously ran to show the relative volume of *all* the lists run on openid.net (in a line chart).

I actually think that board-private has been relatively quiet, but I'd love to have data to back that up.

Chris

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:39 PM, David Recordon <david@...> wrote:

While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not only is this important to myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple times over a lack of transparency within the Foundation.

The current policy states:

The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.

New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public. The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-private list.

Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:

       • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so public disclosure is inappropriate.
       • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they want to control the disclosure of.
These conversations are examples that should be kept to public mailing lists:

       • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
       • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it)
Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."

Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal site: http://factoryjoe.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

[Nat Sakimura]

What about making the motion to conduct the conversation in private  
list and only when accepted can proceed.

So the thread in private list always start from a motion. It should  
include the sunset for the thread as well.

=nat@Tokyo via iPhone

On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <david@...> wrote:

> While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election  
> almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back  
> into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many  
> situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us  
> discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private 
> ) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and  
> ultimately have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not  
> only is this important to myself, but members have also expressed  
> concerns multiple times over a lack of transparency within the  
> Foundation.
>
> The current policy states:
>> The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for  
>> conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to  
>> the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The  
>> list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.
>>
>> New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list,  
>> and ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made  
>> public. The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the  
>> board-private list.
>>
>> Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:
>>
>>    • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiti
>> ng and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere  
>> else, so public disclosure is inappropriate.
>>    • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will us
>> ually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure  
>> of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strat
>> egy that they want to control the disclosure of.
>> These conversations are examples that should be kept to public  
>> mailing lists:
>>
>>    • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
>>    • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp.
>>  board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are o
>> k with it)
>> Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that  
>> everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification  
>> for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject  
>> these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."
>>
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board@...
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

[Chris Messina]

Adding more bureaucracy will definitely not help things. I imagine that people are resorting to the private list because they want to limit discussion and avoid protracted squabbling. 

What would be better would be to develop a set of community guidelines that would help non-board-members more effectively participate in the board@ list. That is, if you want to contribute to the board list, you should be talking about something real or concrete, and not abstract or theoretical (just for one example).

If the tool that we have for convening dialog (namely the public mailing lists) are not serving people's needs, and they're resorting to other channels, we should try to understand what about the current tool is failing them — rather than trying to introduce new rules that require enforcement and therefore some kind of new discipline. 

We started writing up a document for this purpose:

http://wiki.openid.net/board-private

It needs to be expanded, and we need to continually harass those who choose not to abide it — if indeed there is no other excuse for them resorting to the private list other than laziness or ... force of "habit".

Chris

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Nat <sakimura@...> wrote:

What about making the motion to conduct the conversation in private list and only when accepted can proceed.

So the thread in private list always start from a motion. It should include the sunset for the thread as well.

=nat@Tokyo via iPhone

On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <david@...> wrote:

While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not only is this important to myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple times over a lack of transparency within the Foundation.

The current policy states:

The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.

New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public. The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-private list.

Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:

  • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so public disclosure is inappropriate.
  • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they want to control the disclosure of.
These conversations are examples that should be kept to public mailing lists:

  • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
  • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it)
Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."

Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com
Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

[Nat Sakimura]

I disagree. I think they are resorting to private list because they are not sure if they can talk that in public (e.g., due to NDA constraint etc.) Having a rigid process up front will remove that uncertainty and expedite the process. 

=nat

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@...> wrote:

Adding more bureaucracy will definitely not help things. I imagine that people are resorting to the private list because they want to limit discussion and avoid protracted squabbling. 

What would be better would be to develop a set of community guidelines that would help non-board-members more effectively participate in the board@ list. That is, if you want to contribute to the board list, you should be talking about something real or concrete, and not abstract or theoretical (just for one example).

If the tool that we have for convening dialog (namely the public mailing lists) are not serving people's needs, and they're resorting to other channels, we should try to understand what about the current tool is failing them — rather than trying to introduce new rules that require enforcement and therefore some kind of new discipline. 

We started writing up a document for this purpose:

http://wiki.openid.net/board-private

It needs to be expanded, and we need to continually harass those who choose not to abide it — if indeed there is no other excuse for them resorting to the private list other than laziness or ... force of "habit".

Chris

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Nat <sakimura@...> wrote:

What about making the motion to conduct the conversation in private list and only when accepted can proceed.

So the thread in private list always start from a motion. It should include the sunset for the thread as well.

=nat@Tokyo via iPhone

On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <david@...> wrote:

While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not only is this important to myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple times over a lack of transparency within the Foundation.

The current policy states:

The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.

New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public. The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-private list.

Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:

  • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so public disclosure is inappropriate.
  • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they want to control the disclosure of.
These conversations are examples that should be kept to public mailing lists:

  • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
  • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it)
Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."

Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com

Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

[David Recordon]

I actually agree with Chris.  I think that many people choose the private list because it's "easier" for a variety of reasons.  We should identify those reasons and work to resolve them.  Our default should be public and we have remarkably few (if any) NDAs to deal with.

I also agree that having a simple process to move something started on the private list to the public one makes sense.

--David

On Aug 13, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

I disagree. I think they are resorting to private list because they are not sure if they can talk that in public (e.g., due to NDA constraint etc.) Having a rigid process up front will remove that uncertainty and expedite the process. 

=nat

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Chris Messina <chris.messina@...> wrote:

Adding more bureaucracy will definitely not help things. I imagine that people are resorting to the private list because they want to limit discussion and avoid protracted squabbling. 

What would be better would be to develop a set of community guidelines that would help non-board-members more effectively participate in the board@ list. That is, if you want to contribute to the board list, you should be talking about something real or concrete, and not abstract or theoretical (just for one example).

If the tool that we have for convening dialog (namely the public mailing lists) are not serving people's needs, and they're resorting to other channels, we should try to understand what about the current tool is failing them — rather than trying to introduce new rules that require enforcement and therefore some kind of new discipline. 

We started writing up a document for this purpose:

http://wiki.openid.net/board-private

It needs to be expanded, and we need to continually harass those who choose not to abide it — if indeed there is no other excuse for them resorting to the private list other than laziness or ... force of "habit".

Chris

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Nat <sakimura@...> wrote:

What about making the motion to conduct the conversation in private list and only when accepted can proceed.

So the thread in private list always start from a motion. It should include the sunset for the thread as well.

=nat@Tokyo via iPhone

On 2009/08/12, at 8:39, David Recordon <david@...> wrote:

While this was a hot topic of discussion around the Board election almost a year ago, we as an organization seem to have slipped back into a pattern of using the board-private mailing list in many situations where it is unnecessary to do so.  I would like to see us discuss our existing board-private usage policy (http://wiki.openid.net/board-private) in an upcoming Board meeting, evolve it if necessary, and ultimately have the current Board ratify an appropriate policy.  Not only is this important to myself, but members have also expressed concerns multiple times over a lack of transparency within the Foundation.

The current policy states:

The board-private mailing list is a hidden mailing list for conducting certain types of sensitive conversations pertaining to the responsibilities of the OpenID Foundation and its board. The list should be used sparingly and only under certain circumstances.

New issues should be submitted to the public board mailing list, and ongoing updates about its pending resolution should be made public. The work to resolve an issue may be best be kept to the board-private list.

Dick Hardt provides the following examples of private conversations:

  • Executive Director candidates and their status while recruiting and negotiating with them. Often people are employed somewhere else, so public disclosure is inappropriate.
  • Recruitment of new corporate board members. Companies will usually want to (or for compliance, may have to) control disclosure of joining the OpenID Foundation. It may be part of a larger strategy that they want to control the disclosure of.
These conversations are examples that should be kept to public mailing lists:

  • OIDF is looking for a new ED, a new ED has been hired
  • OIDF is recruiting additional corp board members, a new corp. board member has joined (but not to be disclosed until they are ok with it)
Martin Atkins has said that "there is a standing policy that everything sent to the private list must begin with a justification for it being private. Other board members can and often do reject these justifications and the discussions move to the public list."

Thanks,
--David
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

Citizen Agency: http://citizenagency.com

Diso Project: http://diso-project.org
OpenID Foundation: http://openid.net

This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

--
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
http://www.sakimura.org/en/

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board

_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board@...
http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-board