[template] Consistently distinguish between WG|IG participants, #705
Conversation
…e one hand, and W3C Members on the other. Fix #664
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks like a good change. The one piece of #664 that it doesn't fix is "The template should offer wording for IGs to opt into public participants."
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| The group may use a Member-confidential mailing list for administrative purposes and, at the discretion of the Chairs and members of the group, for member-only discussions in special cases when a participant requests such a discussion. | ||
| The group may use a W3C-Member-confidential mailing list for administrative purposes and, at the discretion of the Chairs and members of the group, for member-only discussions in special cases when a participant requests such a discussion. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In practice, do "member-only" lists like https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/ exclude invited experts? This paragraph should probably align with whatever existing practice is. I won't take a stand on what it should be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A while ago we changed things so all Invied Experts get W3C Member access, which solved that problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was my guess, but it means that the mailing list isn't "W3C-Member-confidential". "Participant-confidential" isn't exact either, and listing both is probably too wordy. Maybe just "confidential"?
The use of "member-only" later in the sentence remains ambiguous. Perhaps there, "participant-only" would be correct since it doesn't say that general W3C members couldn't read the discussions that only participants participated in. I don't feel strongly about this; feel free to write whatever makes the most sense now that you've seen the issue.
3 participants
on the one hand, and W3C Members on the other. Fix #664