Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

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

Hi Michael

> IMHO, I agree with Marilyn....we need to avoid being critical.  We do also
> need to look at the problem of multiple lists.  There are several
solutions.
>
> 1) reduce the number of lists

Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:

[ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote
[ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it
[ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
[ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
debate.
[ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system
[ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
[ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
[ga-org]                   -- ditto --
[ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
systems

In other words, like an operating system the separate lists must represent
different levels of the hierarchy.  The "rules" list is needed for internal
housekeeping.

Special purpose lists are like subroutines -- you use them when you need
them.

> 2) make the lists web based and thus threaded

I'm not sure of your meaning here.  Archives can be threaded.

> 3) subscribers use outlook (express) and setup rules to move the messages
> from the their inbox to a folder for that list (this is what I do)

Me too but that's not the real problem.  There are two issues.  One is the
inherent problem of any classification system -- allocation (or "scope").
If ICANN issues a policy on Roots, does that go to [ga] or [ga-icann] or
[ga-roots] ?

The second problem is human error.  For example, one person may write a post
which provokes a new train of thought (or "thread") but this will inevitably
continue on the same list.  In fact people will need to be more disciplined
in the postings.

> 4) any number of other ways to solve this problem.

Basically the set of lists must be intuitive.  That's not the case at
present -- they are not even coherent let alone intuitive.

> FYI, I just re-subscribed to this list and others.  Two main reason I
> unsubscribe: 1) the amount of critical, non-productive email, and 2) the
> duplication/difficulty following the lists.

If you see the sublists as issue-driven, the work will be productive.  An
intuitive system will allow subscribers to follow what's going on without
difficulty.  For that you must have sub-list Chairs and terms of reference
(not just an agenda).

As Eric Dierker wrote:

> We have to stop running this like a chat room and start running
> it like a board room.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



--
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