Re: [ga] Message from the Chair

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

William and all,

  I would agree that any forum can and possibly should have some
rules by which members of that forum can participate.  In the case of
the DNSO GA those rules are not in place and the poll showed clearly
that the RULES that Harald proposed did not have a mandate of the
Members of the DNSO General Assembly/list members.  Until or unless
a set of rules can be agreed to by a clear mandate of the General Assembly/
list members, your concern is, and cannot be adequately addressed.

  Others have offered amendments to Haralds set of "Rules" and they
are as far as I know, still available for debate and discussion with the
potential of a vote by the General Assembly/List members.  ???
In that the DNSO does not have a  legitimate NC or a Chair presently
it would seem appropriate that this matter would necessarily take
precedent before reasonable rules could be adequately and properly
determined.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 25-Jan-2000 Ellen Rony wrote:
> > William Walsh wrote:
> >
> >>The people who can only be seen on the filtered list have given up their
> >>right
> >>to participate for a period of time by not acting with the rules for proper
> >>behavior.
> >>
> >
> > Another example of confusion based on the terminology.
> > Roberto has explained that the "filtered" list would be for good
> > participants, (although one normally "filters" out troublemakers).  I
> > suppose you could call it what it really is: a moderated list, e.g.,
> > ga-moderated@dnso.org.
> >
> > I'll join Karl in removing myself from this discussion if you can't get a
> > meaningful discussion going on a sole unmoderated list.  One of the
> > freedoms of the Internet is the removal of gatekeepers to information and
> > communication.  Now here is a group inserting a new set of gatekeepers.
>
> I'm not sympathetic to this position at all.  The fact is that ANY forum has
> the right to set rules of civil participation.  Just like the ORSC has its
> rules, this forum has its own rules.  If you can't operate within those rules,
> then you do not have a right to participate.
>
> If you don't like that, then by all means, go somewhere like the IFWP where
> anarchy reigns supreme.  I expect better from the DNSO-GA, and I'm glad to see
> we were getting it.  An body who can't set rules for itself to enforce civil
> behavior amongst its participants, who can't set minimum qualifications for
> joining (being a real person), is a body who can't function.
>
> Why the heck would you want that?
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
>
> iD8DBQE4jh1l8zLmV94Pz+IRAskiAKDu/CTZckKGwbm/Z0ZLFu4ieALgMACeJ0Pt
> HwVgIhLarvPZK2xAugOeVDA=
> =h6d8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208