Vernon Schryver wrote:
From: John C Klensin
...
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.
That's not quite the point. Both in an ad hoc group like Adminrest,
and in the IAB and IESG, it is entirely possible that in a discussion
of the real issues, something like the following would be said:
A: The real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job.
B: No, it's Y, who has set impossible boundary conditions on X.
C: I think it was Z's fault, when he/she hired X and Y.
A: Anyway, X is overpaid.
C: Have you any idea how much housing costs there?
D: Let's focus. Is the problem these people, or is the
contract with XYZ screwed up? [Alternatively: is
the WG charter screwed up?]
I made that up, but it is the sort of things that have to be
discussed sometimes. If you can't keep such discussions confidential,
they won't happen, and the real issue will never be faced
(i.e. is X, Y, Z or the organizational setup to blame, and
what should be changed).
These things cannot reasonably be discussed in the sunshine,
which is why the IAB and IESG charters contain the words they
do.
I won't reply in more detail to Margaret's note, except to say
that if the confidentiality clauses she quotes are used *except*
for the above sort of discussion, they're being misused IMHO.
Brian
Truth in advertising: I drafted the confidentality clause
in the IAB charter, which was of course last-called as a BCP.
Harald borrowed it for the IESG charter.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf