[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy
Harald and all,
Below your comments is the general feeling and position that our [INEGRoup]
members have and expressed in brief, in the past, and I an providing yet
again here and now.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> I'm using this message to reply to a multitude of other messages; I'll try
> to be brief. Alex Kamantauskas' message framed a few of the issues nicely,
> so this is shaped like a reply to him. I'll try to be brief.
> At 09:40 14.01.00 -0500, Alex Kamantauskas wrote:
> > So far I've been reading a one-sided conversation between Harald and
> > Baptista ..... but I question why the
> > conversation is taking place at all? Are you not participating in the
> > disruption?
> In the discussion about whether to impose rules that may lead to Baptista
> being excluded from posting for certain periods of time, I find responding
> to Baptista relevant. Apologies for the disruption; I hope it's soon over.
Exclusion of anyone that wishes to participate from posting is just and
excuse to SELECTIVELY CENSOR someone for reasons that are dubious
at best on this forum. It is also a direct violation of the White Paper and
the MoU. There may also be legal implications under the First Amendment
and the Administrations Act as well.
> > Why can't there be two (or more) lists? The uncensored list, which would
> > be the "official" record, and a "filtered" list (or more than one), where
> > everyone who uses that list agrees to the filter rules *by the very act
> > of subscribing to the list*.
> We could. But I don't belive it would be right, because it would require
> those of us who feel obliged to participate to follow the unfiltered list.
Good point here harald and we agree.
> If they take the responsibility of "official" action, they have the duty of
> following the "official" discussion (IMHO).
We are also in agreement here as well.
> And I don't want to force anyone to listen to everything that's posted to
> the list, no matter what its quality is; that's too harsh a punishment for
> volunteering to do work for the community.
Volunteer work is often very difficult. These difficulties must be met
none the less, not shirked for lack of interest or desire. The work or the
DNSO is no different in respect to difficulty. Those that are not up to
the task or tasks, should step aside and allow others that are continue
on with those difficult tasks.
> Note also that the rules that I suggested do *not* envision banning a
> person permanently from the list, and do *not* envision using the
> expression of an idea as a reason for suspending people's right to post.
Indeed YOUR rules you have suggested do not. But they also do not
take into account adequately the "General Assembly" as a decision making
body either. That is not expectable or realistic as they are indeed "Interested
Parties" as directly indicated in the White Paper.
Even temporarily banning anyone from posting is irresponsible in an open
and transparent process as the DNSO is supposed to be. This means that
yes, tolerance and understanding must be practiced from time to time. That
doesn't seem to be in YOUR set of Rules, Harald. As such YOUR rules
proposal is not expectable as they stand now. Modification seems to
The List Admin. along with the illegitimately elected NC, has already
acted improperly, and we believe this is now well known. The List
admin. has cast false aspersions on some individuals, including myself
and a few of our members. This also has not been corrected. We
await that correction. Failure to do so only reflects badly towards the
DNSO as a whole and the List admin. and the illegitimately elected
NC individually. Such a situation allowed to continue has brought
the DNSO to ill repute, and will only fester, if not corrected quickly.
> Numerous people have expressed support for the idea of "two lists".
> I believe they are right - the questions really boil down to:
> - Which one of these is called "ga"?
> - Which one of these is "official"?
This has been tried before on other forums and failed terribly. We
are not in favor of this. The reasons are of course many and varied
some of which I have expressed, as have others.
> A new version of the suggestion will be forthcoming this weekend.
> The changes a majority seem to agree on are:
> - The "unfiltered" list will be archived.
> - The matter of publishing the "unfiltered" archives needs further
> investigation; the only argument so far against such publication is
> liability issues.
There is no known majority on this at this time. Your false statement
here is astounding in our opinion. Movement in this direction without
a VOTE by the DNSO members/participants would be foolhardy if
not severely damaging.
> The other issues raised:
> - Requirement for positive identification of people on the list
> - Allowing people to post using a "handle" (an identifier that is not
> connected to their name)
Good ideas both here in our opinion. I believe that Roeland Mayer
made a good suggestion/proposal some time ago now that dealt with
both of these issues. We support Roelands proposal.
> - Allowing access to the email addresses of subscribers ("who")
> - The question of who decides to impose a suspension of posting rights
> do not seem to be addressed by enough people in the debate to warrant
> changing the current proposal.
This is a bit unexacting of a statement here Harald. Therefore we
suggest unless or until you KNOW how, whom, what, and when, this
issue can be determined by the DNSO GA participants, you have no
> Joop Ternstra has volunteered the use of his facilities for conducting an
> opinion poll of the participants in the list once the revised version is
> released; I guess he'll tell people about the mechanics of doing so in due
This is a good idea as a start. We are in support of this as a potential
measuring stick. Anything enacted however should be determined
by and actual VOTE on and independently managed election by
any and all of the DNSO GA participants.
> I hope we'll get this done soon!
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208