Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 143: RSAB mailing list archives

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 08-Jan-22 06:45, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> 
>     I don’t have a strong opinion but I want to note that is not what we do for the IESG and IAB.
> 
> 
> Notes: the RFC futures group was tasked with developing a replacement for the existing mechanism (RSOC) that had better transparency and accountability.  Public archives offer significantly more transparency, so the group should think about how far to swing the pendulum from 
where the very tightly closed RSOC group was with respect to the decision 
making process that the RSAB will need to conduct.
> 
>     While there is not necessarily  anything secret on those lists, I always thought is makes the work easier because you can just freely send things without e.g. worrying too much about the exact wording. 
> 
> 
> I think in today's internet you must assume that anything you send by mail is archived.  It's just a question of whether or not it's publicly archived or whether you have to ask someone for a copy of it, because almost assuredly someone or multiple someones do have copies.

Indeed. And whatever we write here, there will in the real world be two lists. One called [e-mail] with a public archive and one without a public archive. (The second one might not be a mailman list as such, but whatever we write it *will* exist in some form. I don't think I've ever been in a committee or other team that didn't sometimes communicate "off list". That's just how the world works.)

However, IMHO we can best promote transparency and civil discourse by mandating a public archive in this case.

      Brian