ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sunshine Law

2004-10-23 12:17:12
From: John C Klensin 

Now, the reasons the discussions and mailing list archives were
not made public.  I don't think we really discussed it, but all
of us who are familiar with the IETF process, yourself included,
have noticed how rapidly the S/N ratio can deteriorate in
"public" discussion of things for which the "public" doesn't
take the time to understand the details.

Discussions that are made public can differ from discussions by the
public.  Publishing a mailing list archive is not the same as letting
the peanut gallery contribute to it.  If knowing that the archive for
a mailing list is public would make contributors as noisy as professional
politicians, then you need different contributors.

                                          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.  Besides, that reasoning would justify keeping
everything private except the final conclusions, and often even those.
The fear of looking foolish seems to be a major reason why governments
try to keep everything secret including their firm positions.  Anyone
who fears looking foolish should stay out of the kitchen, or learn to
phrase ideas tentatively until they've become firm positions.

Or follow the old advice to never write anything that would seriously
embarrass you if reported by CNN or read in court.


                When issues that either involve people's jobs,
that can get highly emotional, or that may involve legal claims
are at issue, the importance of holding private discussions
becomes even greater (and we have seen all of those things in
various pieces of the Admin restructuring/reorg process).    I'd
actually favor changing the rules to make that more explicit.

I think Colorado's old Sunshine Law allows private personnel discussions.
There are periodic mini-scandals about abuses of exceptions to the
law, but it generally seems to work.  Judging from
http://www.google.com/search?q=sunshine+law
other states' sunshine laws are similar.

However, that old advice about not saying dumb things even in private
holds, as demonstrated by Microsoft and SAVVIS.  See
http://www.google.com/search?q=savvis+spam+memo

                                    I think there is a huge
difference between "We are going to discuss X with Y. Those
discussions need to be private because they touch on sensitive
issues, but a summary of conclusions and justifications will be
made available as soon as that is possible consistent with that
level of sensitivity" and "the community isn't entitled to know
that the discussions are being held". 

True.


Vernon Schryver    vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>