[KI-LC] Proposer Names Requirement in WG Charters

Thu Jun 11 15:44:26 PDT 2009

I can see why having the e-mail address in the proposed charter would be valuable, in the event that there is a need to go back to the proposers for further information.  While we could just go back to the chair as listed in the leadership section, with people's hectic schedules for quicker resolution it would be best to contact all the proposers.  So I tend to agree with Brett that we should just scrub it from the approved charters before posting to the site.

Sincerely,
Myisha

Myisha Frazier-McElveen
(O) 703-394-1916
(M) 240-678-8187
myisha.fraziermcelveen at citi.com

________________________________
From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Joni Brennan
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:13 PM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: LC at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Proposer Names Requirement in WG Charters

Some additional notes regarding the mail server and archiving tools

We use mailman for list management.  Mailman has it's own archive display which renders email addresses linked in this format - example: britta at projectliberty.org<http://projectliberty.org>   When you click on that link it gives back the list address in the 'to' field - not Britta's actual address.

Additionally, we have deployed google group email archives for each list as a supplemental offering since it's a more dynamic tool. The google group archives allow a person to view the email address but only after filling in a captcha field.

So while the emails do display in some form in both archive tools, they both have a basic layer of protection against spam bots.

Finally, all of the basic protection described is negated if you send mail to a list and it has your email address in the signature. (For me this is the case - so I rely on spam filters and have not had too many problems related to this.)

I hope the context is helpful for users to understand how the email addresses render in the archives.

cheers,

Joni
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed at cordance.net<mailto:drummond.reed at cordance.net>> wrote:

I am a big supporter of contact links (also called contact page), and will note that they can be provided for any URL, not just XRI i-names.

That said, having reviewed Trent's messages, it's clear than an email address is eventually necessary for registration with the DG/WG mail server.

I am disturbed that email addresses are then made public via the list archives. OASIS employes list archives that remove the email addresses from the archives. Can't Kantara do that?

=Drummond

________________________________

From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org>] On Behalf Of Iain Henderson
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:56 AM
To: Bob Pinheiro
Cc: LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>; Eve Maler
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Proposer Names Requirement in WG Charters

yes, i'd tend to agree that posting e-mail addresses on a public web site should not be mandatory.

Perhaps we should all get i-names and a contact link<http://xri.net/=iain>?????

Regards

Iain

Iain

On 11 Jun 2009, at 16:37, Bob Pinheiro 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<mailto: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

Iain Henderson

iain.henderson at mydex.org<mailto:iain.henderson at mydex.org>

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

--
Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Liberty Alliance Project
Director of Operations
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ projectliberty.org<http://projectliberty.org>
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org<http://ieee-isto.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc_kantarainitiative.org/attachments/20090611/fe521935/attachment-0001.html>