Re: Holding more discussions in public

100% agreed here, John.

This is a policy that should have been coming for a long time. It would also
be ultra-cool if SPI would "declassify" anything in its historical list
archives that does not fall under the privacy statements you've outlined.

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 1:37 pm, John Goerzen wrote:
> I have noticed that there are a number of discussions here that are held
> on -board or -prviate when there is no real need for them to not be on
> -general. Some of them are on both -board *and* -private, which seems
> extra silly. I'd like to propose this:
>
> * Elimination of board-private mailing list and the repeal
> of 2003-03-11.iwj.1. That list is never used anyway.
>
> * When carrying out discussions, we should be able to assume that:
> + Everyone subscribed to spi-board is also subscribed to spi-private
> + Everyone subscribed to spi-private is also subscribed to
> spi-general
>
> * All conversation, discussion, debates, updates, etc. should be
> carried out on spi-general (or a different public SPI list) unless
> there is a compelling reason not to.
>
> * All remaining conversation should be carried out on spi-private
> unless there is a compelling reason that it should be restricted to
> members of the board.
>
> I could think of only one example of something that would go to
> spi-private:
>
> * Private information about financial transactions or addresses
> (that is, a donor may not wish to be publically identified)
>
> And I could only think of one example of something that should go to
> spi-board:
>
> * Confidential discussions with SPI legal counsel
>
> I think that most of the conversations in spi-board, and a goot number
> of them in spi-private, have no need to be held in private.
>
> To implement this, we'll need a resolution repealing 2003-03-11.iwj.1.
> I don't think we need resolutions for the rest of it.

--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
ean(at)brainfood(dot)com
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com