> I was suggesting a view. The purpose of these small groups is to get
> certain kinds of work done. In my experience such work cannot be done in
> fully open groups. That is the reason that established practise in most
> public groups is to have a small group, which can operate in private, but
> which is accountable to a public forum. That is the mode in which the gTLD
> is structured and it matches most equivalent structures.
>
> d/
whats the matter hier mr.helfant ?
we have started to discus if pab should be "responsible" only to the
organisations who have signed gtld-mou and work in "closed mode"
or to the larger internet community as well and open his mailing list
archives for reading to the public and also get reed of keeping his work
and working home page password protected - wich all would make the dayly
work much more complicaited and so "transparenc" and "confidenc" in the
process probably very less
i dont see why it is now importend to link this with the poc and
the way the poc operates ?
the poc is a own organisation and it should self descide how to work at
best pab may "advice" them how "they" think it could work "better"
but first we should organize pab in such a way that it can be given as
"a good example" if something is good and proves practical than people
would accept it and do it also that way
at the moment i dont see the need for poc to make their mailing list
available to the public
when it comes to the pab we have our observers at poc and they
can keep us informt whats up-it could be useful to have pab observers on
core too as core hase "observers" on pab :-)
for me it would be inaf to have "public minutes" or at least
emidiately public statements of pocs meetings
in the main time pab should try the experiment of "open working system"
and so be able TO FULLY CONCENTRATE on what it is doing and not on
how to keep secret "WHAT IT IS NOT DOING" :-)
how you find this one :-)
(is a joke of course :-)
sascha