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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Mr. Corliss,

You of course make some excellent points here sir.  Please take it to a positive
step and follow through with establishing rules as discussed below. If it
appears disjointed you can follow through on a quick review of the rules
sublist.

Patrick Corliss wrote:
Hi Joanna

>
> Are you saying they can all go on GA-ICANN mailing list then ?
>
> Or perhaps you should look more closely at the following post:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02513.html
> where you will find all sorts of interesting comments about mailing
> lists and professional behaviour.  I made the following comment:
>
> > My concern is simply that mailing lists should be operating effectively.
>
> It was the need for clearly defined scope of each list that led me to
> perform that analysis.  It seems that I was wasting my time also.
>
> Your response, which I saw as unhelpful, was made at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02517.html
>
> I then repeated my analysis more carefully for further input:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02540.html
>
> > Danny decided on his own initiative, to add another list GA-REVIEW for the
> > purposes you have outlined.  Whilst I had no objection to the list, I saw
> > there was a possible difficulty as it was not clear where the new
> > boundaries were between the several lists.  It was a "scoping" problem.
>
> And if that was not enough, I explained the whole thing again at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02569.html
>
> with a description of a possible structure made at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02570.html
>
> How, for example, will these lists relate to the Organizing Committee?
>
> Of course, you can continue not to discuss the higher-level issues but you
> shouldn't then be surprised when people continue to post to the <ga> list.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Ladies and Gentlemen here are some fantastic criticisms and constructive
> advice to proceeding. Please follow suit so that we may get this done.
> The lists have proven helpful, but we must fine tune the little buggers
> to get them right.  Marilyn's most recent posts on this issuue are a
> must read for those interested. We must do this legitimately with real
> rules allowing their creation and maintanence.
>
> > 1) Your motion does not permit to cancel a list. This should be voted
> > by
> > the list.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > 2) if you want an ML to succeed it must have an owner/stewart (I mean
> > someone more implicated than a moderator). I suggest that the stewart
> > of
> > the list will be the person having introduced the motion.  ie:
> >
> > - someone introduces a motion to start a list
> > - he needs to have 10 seconds and a positive vote
> > - or 20 seconds (it is likely the list will be used)
> >
>
> Sounds like the much maligned term governor, but it correct. An active
> participant that guides and helps.
>
> > 3) the list rules must be kept simple and open
> >
> > - list rules are standard netiquette
> > - additional list rules (from GA or elesewhere) should be indicated in
> > the
> > motion
> >
>
> KISS keep it simple stupid; that way even I can follow it.
>
> >
> > 4) the list should be copied on the GA-Full.
> >
> > 5) every approved list should have link on the dnso.org site (none has
> > today)
>
> These are a must for openness and transparency, and to monitor the
> monitor.  Should we attach a work group to each list and let the GA
> Chair appoint a liason chair to get one elected once the list/group gets
> rolling, like we did in the WG-Review? I like it.
>
> Eric
>

This was in reply to an anonymous critic of my earlier post our GA rules can be
easily modified to allow a smoothe use of sublists.

Sincerely,

--
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