SV: [wg-c] Posts by person

["Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se>]

A comment from our Chairs would be most appreciated...

/ Petter
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>
Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Datum: den 30 augusti 1999 08:42
Ämne: Re: [wg-c] Posts by person


>I tabulated the posts by person report because of a concern expressed in
>Santiago that this list had become a heavily politicized discussion
>group rather than a working group. Supposedly wg-d is going to step in
>and do something about reorganizing. 
>
>See http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/santiago/archive/dnsores2.html
>
>Motion 3: NC declares that current structure and composition of WG-C is
>contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2.b of ICANN bylaws in the sense that
>it’s not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. In this
>regard, the NC requires WG-D within two weeks to provide the names
>council with interim measures to allow the working group C chairs to
>restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its
>functions.
>
>The details of what the consequences will be are still a mystery to me.
>I hope Javier will speak to this soon.
>
>Since I've initiated this reflective thread, I'm probably as guilty of
>introducing non-productive conversation as anyone. My apologies, but it
>seemed germane at the time. Now I'll beat it to death.
>
>Here's a completely unscientific hypothetical: the higher the imbalance
>in the number of posts per person relative to the membership of a list,
>the nastier the list. Why? My formulation is based on the assumption
>that individuals on a closed list like this who post a very small number
>of times (less than 10) are more likely to condense real content into
>their post, while people who post frequently are more likely to slip up
>by making insults. Suppose someone who posts 200 times slips up 5
>percent of the time, while someone who posts 40 times slips up 20
>percent of the time. The proportionately more decent and careful person
>has nevertheless contributed a higher number of flames to the list. 
>This hypothetical is also based on the assumption that high frequency
>posters tend to get into spats and troll-feeding with low-content
>posters. Other important assumptions are that short, cutting, nasty
>flames tend to be more entertaining and easier to remember than
>complicated but important content, and that exposure to such flames thus
>reduces the serious reader's ability to focus on and remember the
>serious stuff. 
>
>If you don't like my assumption-laden science, at least please consider
>my moralistic conclusion, which is that people who intend to post
>frequently have an extra responsibility to be exceptionally careful
>about what they say in public, and should especially be vigilant about
>avoiding tit for tat exchanges.
>
>What's a more practical thing to do? The archives for this list are at
>http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/index.html. Peter seems to be
>suggesting that perhaps I should have recapped the best posts, or
>supplied a list of links to them. Don't hold your breath, folks. Can
>anyone suggest a good collaborative filtering tool that might make this
>kind of work easier?
>
>Rather than appoint myself arbiter of who's posted the most real content
>so far, I'll note that even though the signal may seem relatively high
>here, at least for DNS policy debates, there are serious problems with
>decorum. There has been more than enough gratuitous sniping coming from
>every direction... from both sides... 
>
>As is the custom in DNS discussions, the noise level can spike up
>quickly. There are lots of distracting messages including discursive,
>philosophical/historical stuff like this one, and a type I would call
>emphatics... not flames, but loud restatements of known positions.  The
>consequence has been a flood that's simply too much for some people to
>handle. I've only today caught up with the avalanche of mail that's been
>coming in for the last few weeks. 
>
>Wading through the sniping on this and other lists certainly undermined
>the enlightenemt level of the experience.
>
>So here's a comment relevant to the potential reform of wg-c, if that's
>really what's coming. I don't think the problem has anything to do with
>the current composition of WG-C. It stems from a lack of procedural
>standards exacerbated by a lack of civility and decorum. We need better
>rules of order, and a leader with the grace and energy to apply them.
>
>I'm nearly ready to make a motion regarding TLD meta-policy that I think
>is germane to this working group. However, we really don't have good
>procedures for making motions. Am I allowed to make one, and know for
>certain that it will be considered seriously? How do I know when it is
>or isn't appropriate to do so? Who will rule on whether the motion is
>appropriate for this group? What are the rules for conducting the
>discussion and then closing it? Do we have to make up the rules for such
>conduct, or can we somehow adopt some other procedural guidelines?
>
>Movement to clarify these things is the kind of restructuring that would
>be much more useful to putting our work on a more substantive track. It
>would certainly be better than simply recomposing the group according to
>someone else's preference.
>
>Craig Simon
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>> 
>> As the evident winner of the "posts by persons" contest, I'd like to
>> second this thought.
>> 
>> Petter Rindforth wrote:
>> 
>> > OK, so what are we supposed to do with this list of postings? It
>> > would be more intersting to have a list of the postings that have
>> > included useful suggestions and arguments to enable this WG to
>> > proceed with our task. I am pretty sure that such list will be much
>> > shorter.
>> >
>> >
>