Attendance of the AI Assist Committee on Tuesday 2022-03-22

Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn at
Thu May 26 01:03:35 UTC 2022

Ian Kelling wrote:
> The reason I asked about who attended is that as a reader, I wondered:
> was this a meeting of the full 11 members, or just 2 or 3 or what?

Oh, it's worth noting that we've been canceling/rescheduling meetings if a
majority of the Committee can't attend.  So, you can assume that any minutes
posted were a meeting where a majority of the Committee was present.  We
haven't made that an official rule, but we've been following it de-facto.

Also, the new member is Kat Walsh (from CC); she agreed today to be
identified publicly as a member of the Committee.  I don't know if she'll
participate on this public list or not — again, each Committee member can
decide that, and we've made no requirement they participate in the public
discussion too.

> Also, you are disclosing your own attendance by disclosing that you wrote
> the minutes.

True; and frankly, any members who want to come on this list and "claim"
their positions from the minutes can, or just freshly share their same
positions publicly.

As I said in my last email, there are some very big reasons that we shouldn't
really push the Committee members to make their positions known publicly.

And, I think it's useful to give them culpable deniability by not saying
anything more than “we hold the meeting if the majority can be there”.

I get your desire to seek full transparency, but I hope we can not be too
meta here, since there are so many complex issues to discuss on APAS's.

I suggest we end this subthread here, unless/until there is some new issue of
transparency of the Committee that comes up.  I really think we've got the
right balance of transparency for now, and I definitely want us focused on
function over form as much as possible.

Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freedom Conservancy
Become a Conservancy Sustainer today:

More information about the ai-assist mailing list