Re: Transparency (Re: STRAW PROPOSAL RFC Editor charter)

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Carl Malamud wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian -
> >
> > I agree with the first part ("seek multiple proposals when possible
> > and appropriate").  However, we may disagree on the last part 
> > ("transparent
> > as possible").  My formulation would be "transparent" without the
> > qualifier.  Transparent with a qualifier == opaque.
> >
> > The more opaque the leadership is, the harder it is to keep keep a 
> > system in place where anybody can participate, including participation 
> > by email (one of our hallmarks).
>
> Carl,
>
> I disagree with your assertion.
>
> Transparency is an important tool - but it is a tool, not the mission.
>
> There are instances where one has to choose between transparency and 
> other valuable properties, like making the process work at all, or 
> making it possible to make the process work in a manner acceptable to 
> the laws of the land.
>
> I would definitely not want a stronger statement than "as transparent as 
> possible".

This is in fact exactly what BCP 101 calls for - see the first
paragraph of section 7.

    Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf