[wg-c] wg-c list management

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Oki all,

I'm of two or three minds on the subject. WG-C has as a working group been
deeply disfunctional for ages, there is no shortage of guilty parties, but
we may be within days of being thanked for all of our efforts and released.

This is a working group, so how do lurkers help anyone but themselves make
progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems?
I don't think they can, so purging the list periodically of the dead, the
zombies, and even the crypto-voters ("YES on Question Foobar, no comments")
is a process question others may consider -- I'm sure there is another point
of view, but it won't be one of the lurkers who makes the best arguement to

			"Save the Zombies"

This is a working group, so how does rearguing issues that don't arise from
this WG, or from its charter, or even from the ICANN historical period, make
progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems?
I don't think they can, so redirecting content to off-list venues is another
process question others may consider -- I'm sure there is another point of
view, but quite honestly I don't want to see 

			"Raising Postel"

ever, anywhere.

This is a working group, so how does acceptance of or tolerence for false
claims or proofs-by-assertion or general dishonesty make progress towards
the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems? I don't think
they can, so another process question for others to consider is how to help
co-list-workers keep their feet on or near honest means of pursuasion and
advocacy? I'm sure there is another point of view, but is it honestly held?

Finally, this is a DNSO NC authorized working group, so how does indifference
towards the liaison relationship, or the process, or the work product, make
progress towards the resolution of one or more actual or imagined problems?
I don't think they can, so another process question for others to consider is
how to help the DNSO NC understand that they have a duty to act, and to act
consistent with the charter and their needs and ours, when need arises? I am
again sure that there is another point of view, but the utility of

			"WG-C Abandoned"

escapes me.

The problem we face isn't easy. Our process is one of our tools to work on
the problem. Because this has been long and quite trying some of the people
who are overheated (and you know who you are) may want to take a break.

What I suggest is that you let Jon (or I) know that you are taking a break,
that you haven't however abandoned your interest or your advocacy position,
and delegate your "voice" to someone you trust to represent your views as
well, or better, than you can at present.

If we're done you risk nothing, if we're not done you risk nothing, and in
both cases the list is improved.

There is one class of people who should not be on this list -- people with
the problems Jim Flemming or Jeff Williams suffer with, people who can't be
happy without conflict -- people who need adversaries.

Kitakitamatsinopowaw,
Eric