Attendance of the AI Assist Committee on Tuesday 2022-03-22
Bradley M. Kuhn
bkuhn at sfconservancy.org
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
> 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
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: https://sfconservancy.org/sustainer
More information about the ai-assist