> From: Brian E Carpenter > >> 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. > ... That misses what I tried to say as well as the objections that have been raised. All of the various state sunshine laws have exceptions for personnell, legal, and other matters that truly must be discussed in private. > 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. As I wrote, since the Colorado Sunshine Law was enacted decades ago, there have been many mini-scandals in which government officials have been accuser of lying, often justly, about what they're talking about behind closed doors. People who want political power often also want to be gatekeepers of any and all information that they happen to find, as well as needing to avoid having their decisions examined. If you are saying that deliberations involving the administrative reorganization should as secret as people seem to be saying they were, because they included statements like "real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job," then it sounds like one of those mini-scandals. As far as I can tell, "X" in those discussions would have been agencies instead of people. Besides, even if some Xs were people, one of the uncomfortable parts of jobs serving public committees is that performance reviews and so forth do not get nearly as private as jobs elsewhere, even governments with sunshine laws. > 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. RFC 2850 says The IAB publishes minutes of all its meetings on the Internet, and conducts an open meeting at every IETF meeting. It publishes all its findings as RFCs, Internet Drafts or messages to the IETF mailing list. However, discussion of personnel matters and possibly legal and financial matters may sometimes be required to be kept confidential, and the chair may, with the consent of the full members, exclude liaison and ex officio members from such discussions. Those words in RFC 2850 giving the power of participants to close doors are wrong, if only because they are not specific enough. You cannot rely on committees to keep themselves open; that's why there are sunshine laws and why you put that paragraph in RFC 2850. That those words passed a last call does not mean that they are not subject to reconsideration. Perhaps the NonCom should examine each claimed need for confidentiality. Feel free to call me stupid, but I cannot relate this reorganizaing to personnel matters. You don't re-organize because an employee is sluffing off. There are evidently financial matters, but those particular financial matters also seem inappropriate for confidentiality. I don't care about bureaucratic organizing and almost certainly would not read published minutes of whatever. I don't see any issues that aren't better handled by people other than me. Or until the supposed need to keep stuff secret was invoked, I assumed there were no such issues. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf