Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 11:35:12AM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:

> >IMHO, we can only speak of Membership when a "contract" exist between
> >the individual (member) and the body, by which there is at least:
> >- clear identification of the individual beyond reasonable doubt;
> >- a well-defined system of benefit-duties that distinguishes the member
> >>from the non-member.
> >None of the above conditions currently exist on the GA-list: therefore
> >it cannot be considered a proper membership body.
> 
> Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the GA
> existed and the mailing list (now ga@dnso.org but previously
> discuss@dnso.org) comprised the General Assembly.  So you need to take up
> your arguments with the Names Council, not me.  I am just restating the
> public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
> subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
> above.  Have they?

Yes.  The GA was redefined when the board nominations took place, and 
again when the nominations for chair were made.

> >Harald called this an "opinion poll" (BTW, I concur with this definition
> >, as the conditions for running a proper vote do not exist for the time
> >being), you consider it a "vote", hence the difference of opinions.
> >
>  Call it a poll or a vote, the bottom line is that list subscribers will be
> held to the results,

No, they won't.  That's what makes it an opinion poll as opposed to a 
vote. 

 so our difference of opinions and semantics are
> immaterial.
> 
> 
> >Correct. The "open forum" is the "ga-unfiltered@dnso.org" that everybody
> > can choose to join. Those who prefer a monitored environment, OTOH, may
> > choose to subscribe to the "ga@dnso.org".
> 
> There is a subtle bias in the nomenclature suggested here.  The official
> archive is the unfiltered one, and it should appear at ga@dnso.org.

Nope.  The official archive is the ga@dnso.org; and the
"ga-unfiltered@dnso.org" is just there for monitoring of possible claims
of "censorship".  It serves no other purpose.  This is stated clearly 
in the proposal.

> >Whoever finds that the "filters" are too restrictive, may always go to
> >the other list. Freedom of choice is, IMHO, better than imposing on
> >everybody a one-size-fits-all model of unfiltered mailing list.
> 
> I have no objection to two lists or three (a digest version perhaps), but
> the basic unmonitored list is the true record, and it should be posted at
> "ga@dnso.org"

Sorry, you misunderstand the intent.  The unfiltered list is not the 
"true record".

> >This said, I am claiming that the GA-mailing list (or any loosely-
> >managed mailing list) can not be a proper decision-making body, because
> >of the inherent lack of control of the identity and qualification of the
> > voters, lack of control on multiple ballots, and so on.
> 
> This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on whether or
> not the GA is a decision-making body. 
>
> I object to using this mailing list
> rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision regarding
> the rights inherent in GA membership.  You've got apples and pianos here.

It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
ghosts.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain