Re: [ga] GA-FULL disfunctionment

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Leah,
 From my understanding (may be I am wrong):

1. the sub-List are parts of the GA with the same rules. So when
     I subscribe to the GA-FULL I should receive everything. That
     I don't is a bug. Now we may want to make it a feature. But..

2. The interest in the GA-FULL being truely full is that all the
     archives are at the same place. Not at six or seven different
     places, making global searches impossible.

3. From what I understand cross posting is barred. So if all the
     sub-lists come into the GA I will receive only one copy of
     the same cross-posted mail. If I am subscribed to the six or
     seven lists I may receive up to 14 copies of Eric's posts. I
     enjoy reading Eric's posts, but with his personnal copies and
     the responses from the BoD, the DoC or some of you, this
     might amount to 40 or 50 copies.

4. From Patrick's clear indications (I may have a very low IQ or
     misread him?) the posts on sub-lists of the filtered people are
     blocked. There is no sub-list-full. This is precisely what I am
     interested in.

Let be candid. We know all this is part of a plan to get us fed-up
and to use us. Roeland is fully right. We all known that the @large
study had a purpose and that the GA would be the last place. I
may be wrong, but if we give up here we will give up the iCANN.

After the VeriSign ML closing, there will be no more channel left for
relation with the iCANN. So it will only be war between established
positions and the future/innovation of the nets. No more way to
have a chance to oblige the iCANN to respond. No more dialog.

The sub-lists were not to decrease the traffic on the GA but to limit
the impact of the difficult posts. And to filter opposition out. I was
the one who proposed structured Centers of Interests following on
Karl Auerbach's suggestion. Danny then supported openly my
proposition which was site based. Then he twisted it.

Anyway, he has already agreed to close them ... Try to subscribe
on http://www.dnso.org - if you succeed tell me how you did.

Consensus by exclusion. I would accept it if they were right. But
if they were they would not proceed that way. If we give up here,
we will lose the best way to maintain/reestablish a dialog.

I whish I am wrong. But I do not believe I am.

Jefsey


On 01:50 28/05/01, L Gallegos said:
>In all fairness, Jefsey, the ga-full (to which I am subscribed) was a
>compromise to montoring the ga list with rules.  When the WG lists
>were set
>up it was with the intention of not having all those posts to the ga main
>list and allowing a series of wg's for those who wish to concentrate in
>those areas.  For those who wish to receive ALL posts, it is an easy
>process to subscribe to those lists and either participate or simple lurk.
>
>
>I would not wish to have all the posts from all lists dumped in my
>mailbox.  As a subscriber to the ga-full list, I would receive
>duplicates of all those messages when the intent is reduce the
>number.
>
>I, personally, appreciate receiving the ga-full list so that I can
>monitor all the posts.  However, I am not inclined to ask for
>duplicates to the WG lists to which I subscribe, since if I choose to
>respond to the ones where I participate, I would have no choice but to
>remain subscribed to them and would still receive duplicates.
>
>Jefsey, I would most strongly suggest you subscribe to the WG lists
>so that you will, indeed, receive all posts made to those lists while not
>subjecting the rest of us to duplicates of them.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Leah
>
>
> > On 13:56 27/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> > >With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
> > >available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person
> > >who is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or
> > >all lists.
> >
> > I do.
> >
> > This is why I subscribed to GA-FULL. To be sure that cross posting
> > does not result into duplicates and that I get everything.
> >
> > BTW I must report that the GA-FULL does not work properly, I do not
> > receive all the mails I expect. On he GA lists there are two
> > filterings in action: - the self imposed filtering resulting from
> > posting on a sub-GA list. - the sub-list filtered posts. I fully
> > understand that those who are here for fun may be hurt by some
> > informations, remarks etc...  and that they need such a protection
> > scheme. This is a convenience for them.
> >
> > It happens that those who are here for their business are actually
> > interested in these elements and that for them getting everything is not
> > only a convenience but a necessity. By nature GA-FULL is to broadcast
> > every post on any GA list as if none of these filterings existed. Or this
> > is not a GA-FULL.
> >
> > I would thank Elisabeth to see why the GA-FULL currently does not
> > include sub-list mails and - according to Patrick - there is no way to
> > receive filtered mails on a sub-list. And please to correct this bug.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > --
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
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