[Members] XSF: Communications proposal

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Feb 20 11:41:42 UTC 2015

On 19 February 2015 at 16:39, Laura <laura.gill at surevine.com> wrote:

> *XSF Communications policy*
> *Purpose*
>    - To ensure that the XSF “voice” is unified, consistent and exactly
>    that - the voice of the XSF. As the XSF Board, this is absolutely our
>    responsibility.
>    - To prepare for the launch of the new website with a “clean up” of
>    our communications.
> The above looks fine to me.

> *Proposal*
>    - All social channel accounts (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn - any form
>    of external channel in fact) that claims to be in any way related to the
>    XSF *MUST* be approved by the Board.
>    - The Board *MUST* have admin access and rights to those social
>    accounts.
>    - Any social channel that is not on the “approved” list may not carry
>    the name XSF nor claim to be a representative or voice of the XSF.
>    - The Council have pre-approval to publish technical content,
>    decisions and views on behalf of the XSF.
I think this could be clearer; really what you're saying seems to be simply

* Communications purporting to be made in an official capacity for the XSF
require approval from the Board.

The rest is detail, though I note it's only concerned with social media
(and not email or actual paper mail, which I suspect should be covered).

I think this would answer Ash's queries - saying you are a member of the
XSF is fine, but signing your letter "Ash Ward, XSF Member" would be
implying a level of officialdom that you can't do.

Equally, statements made on behalf of the XSF should be very clear that's
what they are.

> *Outcome*
>    - The channels currently in use will need to be either be handed over
>    to the XSF or shut down.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20150220/618f20ab/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Members mailing list