Re: [ga] [fwd] Steering Group for icannatlarge.com. (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

[Note: This is Thomas' stating his personal opinion, and not the 
chair of the GA speaking in that capacity.]

On 2002-02-28 11:50:07 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:

>   So where did this Steering Group come from? 

I suggested it, and Joop accepted it, with minor modifications.  I 
then set up the mailing list and web archive.

>   Especially since three of its "members" have evidently not even 
>   registered for membership in ICANN-AT-LARGE!  (Aizu, Hofmann, 
>   and Wong). Talk about a setup! There are grave political 
>   mistakes being made here already, which should have been thought 
>   through.

Most of your criticism is (generally) well-taken, but, at this point 
of time, besides the point.

Right now, a lot of "minor" "implementation" details on the site can 
quite well have an influence on what happens. Think about what the 
options are: Not doing anything is certainly _not_ an option. 
Following the (good!) process you describe in your posting requires 
a certain number of members to sign up, which means that some time 
will go by.

Until then, you have very few choices, when it comes to 
implementation decisions which may turn out to be crucial (in 
particular when there is no clear input from the relevant community, 
yet): Either, the individual in charge of the implementation is 
going to make lonely decisions. Possibly after having received 
feed-back behind the scenes, from those he bothers to ask, possibly 
after having listened to some mailing lists or web forums.  But, 
ultimately, he's making decisions of his own, and he's the only one 
in charge of important details.

Or, there is some group of (hopefully) respected individuals who 
give that feed-back in a publicly visible way, and a commitment of 
the implementor to follow the advice of that group.

I very much prefer the second option over the first one, which is 
why I worked to implement it.  (I do, in particular, prefer that 
second option when we are talking about the single effort which 
seems to be getting most of the attention.  Because, in this case, 
the third option (namely, to let the effort fail) would cause 
considerable harm, and should not be choosen.)


	  This steering group is a quick stop-gap measure.


(OK, maybe we should have called it something else, but I had to 
think about a quick name for that mailing list.  atlarge-cabal 
didn't sound right, either.)


Please look at it that way, and please work to make it unnecessary 
by joining the membership, and helping it to gain momentum.  In 
particular, I'd like to ask you to put your comment about the 
"statements" policy (which, BTW, was the implementor's decision) 
into one of the forums.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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