Re: [ga] Matters to discuss

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

Harald and all,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 12:30 21.02.00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >Harald and all,
> >
> >Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > Now that the list is a quiet place to work, it would be a shame if we still
> > > couldn't get any work done.......
> > >
> > > the immediate questions confronted by the GA (and therefore valid items for
> > > discussion on the GA list) are:
> > >
> > > - Who are the GA members?
> >
> >   I believe this has already been determined when folks subscribed to the
> >DNSO GA list or the DNSO Announce list.  This was also already announced
> >on the DNSO Announce list as well if I recall.
>
> I think we need to nail it down a bit further than that.

  Ok.

>
>
> Some of the members of the DNSO GA and Announce list are list
> redistribution points or archivers. Those functions obviously don't have
> any ambition about being members, but some of the people who read list
> traffic via those mechanisms might want to be counted as members, even
> though they aren't on the list.

  Archivers?  What is that exactly in your mind?  Is this a "Label"? or
definition of a member's status, perhaps?  I am just not familiar with
the term "Archiver" in this context.  Please advise or expand.

  I agree that there are many that do read the Archives, but are not members
of the GA list may want to be members.  Due, as you well know, the recent
questionable activities and missive comments, there have been many that have
left the fold.  This could be discouraging to others form joining.  That is a shame

or otherwise unfortunate.  So, seeking definitions on how the DNSO membership
can be expanded I also believe should be encouraged.  However it may be a wise
thing to not do other things to discourage this, Harald....

>
>
> I take it we all agree that the GA members are human beings, acting for
> themselves (no corporations as GA members, one man = one vote)?

  In as much as this is possible realistically, yes.  In that many form certain
organizations may be members of like thought and ideas, maybe not.  So,
this would depend on a definition or context of your question I would suppose

>
> And that we accept the risk that some organization with ten thousand
> members might want to sign them all up to the GA and "take it over" - that
> it's so unlikely this would happen that we don't see a reason to guard
> against it?

  To guard against "Interested Parties", regardless of their other affiliations
would be a form of censorship and would disenfranchise those people that may
have independent interests for being a member.  So what would we be potentially
guarding against, really?

>
> (or - that if this happened, they would be welcome to it?)

  I don't think it is a question of welcoming something or a potential
situation as you suggest (See your comments above), but rather being
open to everyone of whom has an interest, and want's to contribute.

>
>
>                       Harald A
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>
> --
> 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

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


--
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