> From: John C Klensin > Now, the reasons the discussions and mailing list archives were > not made public. I don't think we really discussed it, but all > of us who are familiar with the IETF process, yourself included, > have noticed how rapidly the S/N ratio can deteriorate in > "public" discussion of things for which the "public" doesn't > take the time to understand the details. Discussions that are made public can differ from discussions by the public. Publishing a mailing list archive is not the same as letting the peanut gallery contribute to it. If knowing that the archive for a mailing list is public would make contributors as noisy as professional politicians, then you need different contributors. > Private discussions > are sometimes a necessity, as is the ability to float what might > be stupid ideas without having them quoted for years as one's > firm position. I have trouble imagining such tender feelings in anyone who should be allowed to participate. Besides, that reasoning would justify keeping everything private except the final conclusions, and often even those. The fear of looking foolish seems to be a major reason why governments try to keep everything secret including their firm positions. Anyone who fears looking foolish should stay out of the kitchen, or learn to phrase ideas tentatively until they've become firm positions. Or follow the old advice to never write anything that would seriously embarrass you if reported by CNN or read in court. > When issues that either involve people's jobs, > that can get highly emotional, or that may involve legal claims > are at issue, the importance of holding private discussions > becomes even greater (and we have seen all of those things in > various pieces of the Admin restructuring/reorg process). I'd > actually favor changing the rules to make that more explicit. I think Colorado's old Sunshine Law allows private personnel discussions. There are periodic mini-scandals about abuses of exceptions to the law, but it generally seems to work. Judging from http://www.google.com/search?q=sunshine+law other states' sunshine laws are similar. However, that old advice about not saying dumb things even in private holds, as demonstrated by Microsoft and SAVVIS. See http://www.google.com/search?q=savvis+spam+memo > I think there is a huge > difference between "We are going to discuss X with Y. Those > discussions need to be private because they touch on sensitive > issues, but a summary of conclusions and justifications will be > made available as soon as that is possible consistent with that > level of sensitivity" and "the community isn't entitled to know > that the discussions are being held". True. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf