[ga-rules] Structuring the Mailing Lists

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Tue, 29 May 2001 08:59:28 -0700, Bill Lovell wrote:

> The term "sub-list" needs to be eliminated; I think it was Patrick who
> recently laid out the distinction. Also, it's sometimes amazing how
> people will let a little squibble on a screen do their thinking for them:
> there's a ga with no dash and then a bunch that have ga-whatever,
> so somehow that's a main list and then sublists.  I suggest that what
> we now call ga be renamed ga-gen (i.e., "general") or some such
> thing where it will at least fall alphabetically into a pile and not stand
> out so much.

Hi Bill

That's an interesting proposition.  It certainly would cause a change in
thinking.

Let me put something to you.  We have a Chair who, after ample discussion,
creates a work-item to be done (a briefing paper or a review, etc).  This is
allocated to a Working Group such as GA-ROOTS who goes away for a month or
two.

Eventually they report back with their result.  Perhaps a motion to be put
to the GA membership as a whole.  How can they do that if the GA is just a
sundry list?

Of course, the VOTING membership could be the combined list.
I'd like to see this list structure further debated here on GA-RULES.

Perhaps Jefsey is right.  No cross-posting and all posts go to GA-FULL.
It's a pity Jefsey's not subscribed so he can provide his viewpoint.


Regards
Patrick Corliss





--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html