[KI-LC] Proposer Names Requirement in WG Charters
J. Trent Adams
adams at isoc.org
Thu Jun 11 09:21:54 PDT 2009
Brett -
Your proposal seems to work in relation to my read of the OP. Here,
then, is my modified version of the WG Approval Process [1] indicating
this approach:
1. The Proposing Participant obtains a blank Work Group Charter
template and fills it out.
2. The Proposing Participant (or whover is named as the leader in the
WG Charter) submits the completed WG Charter to the LC Secretary.
3. The LC Secretary, in conjunction with the KI Staff, review the WG
Charter to ensure it adheres to the rules laid out in the KI Bylaws and
Operating Procedure documents.
NOTE: This step is only to ensure the charter adheres to the
template requirements, and does not include any vetting of the proposed
work.
4. The LC Secretary notifies the Proposing Participant when the WG
Charter is officially accepted, and forwards the WG Charter to KI Staff.
5. KI Staff adds the proposed WG Charter to the wiki, removing email
addresses from all named Proposers other than the named Leader, and
forwards the link to the LC Secretary for distribution.
NOTE: The KI Staff need the email addresses of the proposers in
order to provision the email distribution list, but they do not need to
be made public.
6. The LC Secretary announces to the LC discussion list that a new WG
Charter is available for review, along with a link to the wiki page.
7. The LC Chair, working with the LC and Proposing Participant, sets
a date for voting on the WG Charter, to be held within 30 days of being
received by the LC Secretary.
Basically, I'm clarifying that the proposed WG Charters are not publicly
available until Step 5. In the process of adding the WG Charter to the
wiki, the KI Staff could remove the email addresses so they are not made
public. That way, the WG Charter that's filed with the LC Secretary
adheres to the 3.1 of the OP, while still respecting the privacy of the
WG Proposers.
Do people believe this process works? If so, would we need to tweak the
quoted section of the OP to allow for the fact that email addresses are
required for submission, but not required as part of the "public review"?
As a side note... if any of the WG Proposers contribute to the WG
Discussion List, their email addresses are public since the Discussion
Lists are public. So, I'm not entirely sure this extra work adds much
privacy protection (unless their participation is limited to calls and
meetings).
- Trent
[1] http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/K4FJ
Brett McDowell wrote:
> Since 3.1 requires:
> "All proposed and approved WG Charters must be made available for
> public review.
>
> The proposed Charter (using the format provided in Annex A) for a WG
> must include: "
>
> I see a distinction between a "proposed Charter" and an "approved WG Charter". Since the intent of requiring the names and email addresses, etc. was most likely so the proposers could be contacted with questions as part of the review and approval
> process of the "proposed Charter", I suggest the Secretary can scrub
> those details from the proposed Charter when publishing it to the LC
> (and the world). So the "proposed Charter" meets the requirements set
> forth, and we avoid the privacy implications.
>
> That said, I believe another intent of this requirement as it might
> relate to "approved WG Charters" was to show who originally put their
> name against this effort as being in support of it. So a "privacy
> clean" list of proposers should be retained in the public version of
> the charter. Corporate Affiliation would be retained, but perhaps
> names (but at least email addresses) would be removed.
>
> Does this seem like a reasonable interpretation of the Operating
> Procedures that achieves the goals of LC, proposers, and BoT members
> who created the policy in the first place?
>
>
> Brett McDowell | +1.413.652.1248 | http://info.brettmcdowell.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Bob Pinheiro <bob at bobpinheiro.com
> <mailto:bob at bobpinheiro.com>> wrote:
>
> Posting one's email address on a public website may perhaps be a
> sensitive issue for some. Even though our Proposers know that
> their names and affiliations will be listed in the charters, I
> don't think that necessarily means that Proposers realize that
> their email addresses would be listed as well. Of course, the
> Chairs of each WG could go back and ask permission. I'm not sure
> we should just go ahead and post these email addresses without
> permission.
>
> But why are the email addresses of Proposers needed at all? I
> note that the email addresses of the members of the Board of
> Trustees are not posted. I don't have any problem, as a WG Chair,
> with my email address being posted. But I think we should be
> sensitive to the potential privacy concerns of others who agree to
> participate in these WGs. If someone who views one of the
> charters wants to contact any of the Proposers, that person can
> always go through the WG Chair to make contact.
> So I would suggest we have a discussion about whether listing
> email addresses of our Proposers is really necessary. We may want
> to consider amending the Operating Procedures, depending on the
> outcome.
>
> Does anyone else think this is an issue?
>
> Bob Pinheiro
>
>
> J. Trent Adams wrote:
>
> All -
>
> Following our discussion on the LC call yesterday (minutes
> coming), we
> touched on the required form that WG proposer names need to
> take in the
> charter.
>
> For reference, here's the salient line from section 3.1 of the KI
> Operating Procedure [1] indicating what's required:
>
> -----
> 11) Names, email addresses, and any constituent affiliations
> of at least
> the minimum set of proposers required to support forming the WG;
> -----
>
> For WGs, the minimum set of proposers is outlined earlier in
> section 3.1 as:
>
> -----
> three (3) or more proposed Participants of the WG, at least
> two (2) of
> whom shall be Members.
> -----
>
> Please let me know if anyone would like to consider changing the
> Operating Procedure relating to this requirement.
>
> Otherwise, please review your own charters and send any
> missing details
> to the LC Secretary, Eve Maler (Eve.Maler at Sun.COM), and KI Staff
> Support, Joni Brennan (joni at ieee-isto.org
> <mailto:joni at ieee-isto.org>). They will update the
> charters on their respective wiki pages.
>
> Immediate action is required by:
>
> * Iain Henderson for the User Driven Volunteered Personal
> Information
> Tech WG (UDVPI-Tech) - need email addresses and affiliations
> of proposers.
>
> * Philippe Clement for the proposed Identity Provider Selector
> Work
> Group (IdP Selector WG) - need affiliations for the proposers.
>
> * Robin Wilton for the proposed Privacy and Public Policy Work
> Group
> (P3WG) - need email addresses for the proposers.
>
> I apologize for the earlier oversight of this requirement when we
> initially vetted their charters. I trust now that it's been
> raised to
> everyone's awareness, though, we'll be more vigilant in the
> future.
>
> Thanks for your help,
> Trent
>
> [1]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/2293776/Kantara+Initiative+Operating+Procedures+_V1.0_+2009-04-03.pdf?version=1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
>
>
--
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams
Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org
e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149
More information about the LC
mailing list