Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-05-29 11:59:51 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:

>Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership 
>of the GA (and especially posting rights on the list) should be 
>endorsed by a minimum of 5 other individual GA members. (number of 
>5 is of course open to debate) This would make each poster to the 
>GA list a sort of "representative" with accompanying rights and 
>obligations.

I object.

This proposal basically means that you have to know some members of 
some kind of GA mafia in order to even get a chance to get your 
voice heared.

Since (ok, in an ideal world...) the GA is supposed to be the focal 
point of domain name related informations, this basically means that 
individual newcomers wouldn't have any chance to ever join the GA - 
at least not by the merit they could gain in DNS-related 
discussions.  (It's not that bad for those who are representing 
organizations in some of the constituencies, since their fellow 
members could still help them to get on board of the GA.)

Thus, while such a scheme may indeed work for closed circles such as
the BWG (I'm told), it's certainly the wrong approach for an open
General Assembly.


If all you are looking for is noise reduction and usability, you 
should gateway the GA lists to local newsgroups, and use a good 
newsreader with scoring capabilities to follow them. (Alternatively, 
use an appropriate mail user agent.)

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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