RE: [ga] Austerity measures

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote on 14.05.01, 21:11:26:
> I would second Roeland's comment below:
>
>>
>>I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
>>considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise that
>>enabled moderation on the GA list.
>
> I think that the NC should reconsider the matter, because closing down the
> GA-full will definitively destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago.
> The idea to restart from scratch the whole discussion about monitoring and
> censorship, right now that we seem to start making some progress, is
> frightening.

I have listened to the Names Council teleconference
meeting (thanks, Bret!), and it turns out that,
according to the Secretariat, the setup time for 
the five new GA sublists was about *twenty* hours of 
secretariat work, the typical maintenance costs are about 
*two* hours per day (Philip Sheppard referring to figures by
Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO Secretariat; unfortunately it 
is very much at the end of the 14 MB audio file Bret Fausett 
recorded).
  http://www.lextext.com/nc05092001.html

If you listen to the NC discussion of the issue, you 
will probably /not/ get the impression that this is a ploy
to silence the uncomfortable voices or something alike
[just to make sure: I'm obviously not addressing Roberto
here!]. Philip Sheppard: "As I understand, for reasons of
history, there are two main GA lists, one of which was
designed to be entirely open, the other one was moderated.
The one [list] that is moderated is the one that is used 
by hundreds, and the one that's entirely open tends to 
be used as a duplicate list and has a current subscription 
of about ten; and I was wondering if it was not time, in 
terms of being pragmatic, to suggest the closure of that 
list in light of these new five, which would save a 
little bit of administrative time." The other NC members 
agreed.

This said, I agree with Roberto that the GA-full list should 
be continued nonetheless. I would assume that any tasks 
connected with archiving and dealing with subscriptions 
are much more time-consuming for all the other lists. The 
GA-full has very few subscribers and, as Roberto mentions, 
the fact that it is unmoderated should make the administration
even easier. There is little to be gained moneywise, 
but there is a real risk of returning to an earlier point and 
state of discussion which we had hoped to have gotten past.

I ask Philip and the other NC members to reconsider this step,
especially as it is indeed the /moderation/ which requires 
extra work:
  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00301.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html