[governance] communicating with our peers

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

>> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would  
>> be good to hear. What should it be,
>
> 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it  
> follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed?
>
> 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and  
> be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive  
> issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when  
> discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion  
> summarized if appropriate.)

I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an  
alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO.   
Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on  
the Secretariat.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance