RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	On August 26, the Names Council resolved that Working Group C's then-existing structure and procedures were inadequate to carry out its substantive work.  It directed Working Group D to provide "interim measures to allow the working group C chairs to restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its functions."  On September 14, Working Group D issued its report.  That report recommended that this WG

"seek to encourage participation by all interested parties by . . . seeking to limit the list members' posts per day (say, to two).  This could have two beneficial effects.  First, it would cut down on the volume, and allow people to participate in WG-C without having it take over their lives.  Second, list members faced with this limitation might take care to make their two posts per day count — leaving unimportant or tangential things unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments on the main issues before the group."

The NC adopted Working Group D's  report on Sept. 15.  Javier and I implemented the recommendation though a message I sent to the list on Sept. 17:

"2. Effective tomorrow, everyone is limited to posting no more than two messages to the list per day. . . .We trust that everyone will comply with this limitation without needing to be asked.  Nobody will moderate posts before they go to the list.  That means that it's the responsibility of each list member to make sure that he or she doesn't violate the two-post-per-day rule by accident or in an excess of enthusiasm.  If people should violate the rule, they will be sanctioned by a warning followed by short-term suspension from the list.  The ultimate sanction for violation is expulsion, although I can't imagine that that will be necessary."

The two-post-per-day rule hasn't been an issue until today.  People other than Tony have breached it, but (in my opinion) only inadvertently and in minor degree.  Any working group member is free to urge that we reconsider the rule, but, at least until there is a groundswell of support for its reconsideration, it remains in effect.

Accordingly, I want to remind everyone that we did institute a two-posts-per-day rule.  I trust that everyone (including people who think the rule is a bad idea) will follow it from now on.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 05:11 PM 10/9/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: 
>>>>
> At 03:18 PM 10/9/99 , you wrote:
> > I haven't posted for some time, but I do support the need to limit the
> > posts, so we can all get some work done and I think it helps us to be
> > thoughtful and more "editorial" about what we post... thus making it more
> > useful to our list colleages. Marilyn Cade
>
> Hi Marilyn,
>
> Welcome to the Internet.  It's called Internet collaboration.
>
> Fortunately the rule is that which is written into
> the group's charter and for which notice is provided
> on WG-C's website:
>
> > Operation 
> > ...
> > ·      At any time, anybody who has been reading the public list or the documents, may write to the comments-gtlds@dnso.org address with suggestions and comments for the WG (e-mail sent directly to WG members will be considered as not received, to avoid flooding). 
>
> See <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html
>
> It's also called "open" - and it is certainly one attribute
> that even among those of us who vigorously disagree, share
> common ground.
>
> Please post more often and share your views.
>
>
> --tony  
<<<<