RE: [council] List administration

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

"Chicoine, Caroline G." <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> wrote:

> Costs was one of the factors, but I believe the numbers show thaat the full
> list usage is negligible compared to the restricted list.  Elisabeth can you
> shed light?


Caroline,

The two lists ga@dnso.org and ga-full@dnso.org are an indisocciable
compromize, even if the full list usage is negligible compared to
the restricted list.

The ga@dnso.org list was intended for a civilized discussions,
focusing on the DNSO substance. The debate on GA proven that there
is no definition of "civilized", then the label "censorship" started
to be used to inflate and inflame the issue of moderation.
This is a proven tactic to stifle any constructive discussion.
Worked mervelous on GA.

A hard work by Roberto and Harald led to the compromize - a very 
smart technical twin-lists system, with the moderated list
and an completely open by design one, where post from non-members
are accepted intentionally, to allow archiving of contribution 
from everybody. A kind of "witness" what moderation means.

It proven that the ga-full is negligible, but if the ga-full is to
be suppressed, the "censorship" tactic or similar will happen 
again at any moment on the main ga list.
We have a classical situation where the benefit of something
is not related to its existance, but to the effects of its suppression.

Please refer to Roberto Gaetano post on the subject, in:
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01897.html

Elisabeth


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:vany@sdnp.org.pa]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 5:12 AM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [council] List administration
> 
> 
> Hi Caroline:
> 
> My understanding (of someone that wasn't in the NC meeting but read
> comments of people who listened recordings) it was that the reason to
> close the list it was because it is very expensive to have such a mailing
> list open.  I fact, I remember Phillip after in this list to say that if
> GA doesn't want to close GA-FULL list, then maybe GA can consider about
> the other lists.   All because a matter of "costs".
> 
> I stated clearly in previous e-mails about what costs really brings
> mailing lists administration when are properly organized and setted-up with
> tools that
> allow that some tasks be automated.
> 
> Cheers
> Vany
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
> 
> > Peter we had two ga lists, one that had no restrictions regarding
> > participation, and the other that had rules.  the reason was that there
> was
> > staeting to be too much "noise" on the initial ga list and people were
> > ultimately deciding not to participate because of it.  my understanding of
> > the nc decision to close the "full" list was that the large majority of
> > people were using the restricted list and very few were still using the
> full
> > list.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 10:13 PM
> > To: philip.sheppard@aim.be
> > Cc: 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; council@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [council] List administration
> >
> >
> > Philip, and all NC members:
> >
> > did I miss something here?
> >
> > A vote to close the (main) GA list?  When did it happen. I am not in favor
> > of that!
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 6:24 AM
> > To: council@dnso.org; philip.sheppard@aim.be
> > Subject: Re: [council] List administration
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip,
> >
> > Thank you for taking on your shoulders the mailing list
> > issue during the last NC call.
> >
> > It is unfortunate I had a plane to catch and could not
> > give some clarification by myself.
> >
> >
> > Setting up lists on the DNSO is not only a short technical
> > exercise.
> >
> > The majority of time on new GA lists was spent in clarifying
> > with new and old GA Chairs and List Monitors the lists
> > requirements, the rules applied to each list and the rules
> > applied accross lists. The procedures for posting rights
> > handling, the synchronization between Lists Monitors decision
> > and Secretariat, the timely technical implementation.
> >
> > There is more than 1300 subscribers to all active DNSO lists
> > (more than 900 different e-mail addresses), and more than 300
> > subscribers to the DNSO Voting Registry.
> > The DNSO lists maintenance duties includes watching technical
> > problems as well as bounces handling and providing answers to those
> > who get lost and ask for help in unsubscribing or modifying
> > addresses. Depending on traffic (either induced by e-mail addresses
> > belonging to lists, and which may have temporary or permanent
> > problems, or par cross posting, or par spaming, par chain-mails,
> > par some automated answers, etc.), the usual load at listadmin
> > is more than two hundred delivery-reports two times a day.
> >
> >
> > As for my opinion for ga and ga-full lists, they are both
> > associated and in equilibrum, adopted by the GA members
> > after several months of work by former Chairs, Roberto Gaetano
> > and Harald Alvestrand.
> > Closing the ga-full list is not an independent decision, and may
> > destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago.
> >
> > I am asking the NC Colleagues to reconsider this.
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> >
> 
> -- 
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3455
> e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>