[ga] why not a consensus about sub-lists?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeff and Patrick,
I respond publicly to this mail received on public list.

I think it quite positive. It shows three different attitudes
which might be aggregated into a consensus over sub-lists.

Could we agree on this and turn it listetiquette?

1.   DNSO/GA list is the only one people should be on.
2.   sub-lists are for collateral work or education
3.   they are subject to their own rules by their moderator:
       they are listed by GA on a page linked to dnso.org
4.   they are GA "a parte".  they can be freely copied to GA
5.   anyone can freely join/remove himself from any sub-list
6.   all the sub-list posts are copied to GA-FULL
7.   to keep threads in sub-lists ReplyTo is set to sub-list
8.   creating and moderating a sub-list needs only 4 seconds
9.   no restriction on the debate as long as on topic,
10. existing sub-lists are used for mutual education.
      No debate allowed. People ask questions to get an
      answer (technical, historical, about someone position,
      etc...) how controversial may be the response it is
      accepted as educational only, no reply permitted.


I note that it only calls for one line to be added by Secretariat
to DNSO.ORG and for someone to maintain an excel table.
I am ready to do it.

Example: ga-rules:

- every participant may be asked his position. The archive
   makes a good FAQ for reference
- then several working sub-lists may handle the different
   propositions as Good Practice, Sub-List rules Template,
   Moderators, Posting limits. Once the issue is OK it is
   reported to the GA and the sub-list is closed.
- if a sub-list becomes sleepy it is up to its Moderator to
   report to the GA and attract comments.
- if someone wants to be aware of everything on an ML:
   it get to GA-FULL.

May be should we change for better support to a more
easily managed system, or may be WXW would know
how to set-it up. But IMHO knowing what we want would
help us to survive in the meanwhile (sub-lists could be
temporarily replaced by "[theme]title" subjects). The
most urgent would be to have a consensus on mutual
education sub-list sanctuaries.

My 2 cents. I will not come back on that.

Jefsey



>1.) that not sublist currently or in the future is restricted by the
>      illegitimate GA list rules.
>
>2.) That ANY subscriber to ANY sublist can carry forward or CC
>      to the DNSO GA list relevant posts they feel is or many be of
>      specific interests to the remainder of the DNSO GA.
>
>3.) That ANY an ALL Sublists are open to ANY and ALL interested
>      parties without exception.
>
>4.) that debate and discussion is open and transparent without
>restriction as
>      long as it is on topic.






At 11:06 10/07/01, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Patrick and Jefsey,
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Hi Jefsey
> >
> > > > That's your personal opinion.
> > >
> > >   No, I share in his opinion on this issue...
> > >
> > > >  But it has no legitimacy with the DNSO
> > > > Secretariat or within the GA generally.  You can change that by
> > generating
> > > > support for your ideas.
> > >
> > >   He has mine on this issue...
> >
> > You're the one that said it wasn't legitimate, remember?
>
>   I did not say this Patrick.  I said that the current GA list rules
>are not legitimate.  I hope you are not straight on this?
>
> >
> > Please decide if you want the sublists YES or NO.
>
>   Yes.  I see the sub lists as a good idea with a few caveats.  They
>are as follows:
>
>1.) that not sublist currently or in the future is restricted by the
>      illegitimate GA list rules.
>
>2.) That ANY subscriber to ANY sublist can carry forward or CC
>      to the DNSO GA list relevant posts they feel is or many be of
>      specific interests to the remainder of the DNSO GA.
>
>3.) That ANY an ALL Sublists are open to ANY and ALL interested
>      parties without exception.
>
>4.) that debate and discussion is open and transparent without
>restriction as
>      long as it is on topic.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Then say so.
>
>   I have several times and just did so again.
>
>Regards,
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>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

--
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