[ga-rules] Path of Practical Utility

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Eric

On Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:43:16 -0700, you wrote:
> May I suggest you lay out your plan for the general public of
> the GA and see if it obtains support.  Lay it out here or in systems
> and let us make it a procedure if it obtains popular support. I like the
> lists with a few minor tweaking adjustments and I think they will obtain
> support.

To some extent, William Walsh is correct when he says that the sublists lack
legitimacy.  However, the Chair was elected by the Assembly and should not
need to refer every administrative decision back to the GA for approval.  As
William also suggests, that causes paralysis.

In between there is a path of practical utility.

The plan is quite simple.  The main GA list is overwhelmed with attack and
division.  It also gets diverted by people talking about the procedures
instead of substantive issues.  Some people want the GA to fail and have
said so publicly.  My view is that the GA is dysfunctional and we need to
achieve some constructive outcomes.

(1)    At present the [ga] list is overwhelmed with debate.  Much of it is
flaming.  New subscribers lose interest and the numbers are falling all the
time.  With separate lists, subscribers can select their own topics on
interest.   Those interested in the UDRP can subscribe to it only.  That way
there is a concise list suited to their personal interests.  Believe me when
I say that not everybody is subscribed to all lists.  People can pick and
choose -- and they do exactly that.

(2)    The [ga-roots] mailing list is absolutely essential because the
issues are very contentious but they are NOT mainstream issues.

Thus the arguments will rage on.  It's much better for all those interested
in roots to go away and play in their own sandpit.  They can argue all they
like and maybe they will come up with some policy proposals.  In fact,
Harald and I nearly achieved opposing motions.

(3)    Early last year the mailing list was wrecked for months with debate
on the *rules*.  I unsubscribed at the time because of the debate.  The
whole list was diverted for months.  My idea is simple enough.  The present
rules are unlikely to get revised easily but people will surely try.  When
that occurs, we should send them away to [ga-rules].

(4)    There is a real possibility that we can generate *virtual* lists for
the various constituencies.  My idea was to try that out.  Let's say we
scrapped the [ga] list so that everyone could only post to a sublist.  But
that all postings were then forwarded to [ga-full].  The effect would be
that subscribers to [ga-full] would get the whole debate but each list would
be standalone.  The result would be instant *virtual* constituencies.

The creation of special purpose lists is a good idea.  I think they could
succeed and there is evidence from their actual usage.  However, there are
too many and this causes concern.  Of course, they cannot work if they are
sabotaged by the few who oppose them.

The special purpose lists are here now.  People are using them.  We need to
make them work or scrap the idea.  Eliminating a few would help.

That's my view.  What do you think?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


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