[bestbits] Report back with some options for open/closed lists

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Nov 12 20:18, Deborah Brown (deborah at accessnow.org) wrote:

> I'm reporting back from some discussions among
> the interim steering committee* on different options for moving forward.
> Here are the some options we came up with:
> 
>    1. Everything on the public list (i.e. status quo)
>    2. Using the open list as the default, and have the option of moving
>    strategic conversations to the private list
>    3. Using the open list as the default, and starting issue-specific lists
>    for strategic discussions among civil society. This would follow the model
>    of the [EC] list that was used to prepare Best Bits' submission to WGEC
>    (welcoming suggestions to improve that model). Drafting and strategic
>    discussions took place on the closed list and were reported back to the
>    main list.
> 
> Most of us on steering prefer option 3, but we could not come to an
> agreement on whether or not the archives of emails on civil society list
> should be public or only available to the members of the list.

I would prefer option three with public archives.

I would, however, also like to point out a possible middle ground:
make the archives public with a delay.

In case of time-limited, project-specific lists this can be done
simply by opening up the archives after the project is over.
This avoids the tactical disadvantage of opposition reading
the debate in real time, yet provides admittedly limited but
still significant transparency compared to forever-secret list.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen