[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Message from the Chair
About the discussion on membership.
Ellen Rony wrote:
> That notwithstanding, the assertion of what constitutes
>membership in the GA does not belong in a discussion of mailing list
>because it is an overarching principle .
I did probably generate some confusion because I answered to a previous
posting of yours thinking you meant that the membership should not be
discussed in this mailing list.
I understand now that you mean that we shall start a separate thread.
About the "naming convention".
>I continue to maintain my stand that the nomenclature chosen,
>for the filtered version of the list and ga-unfiltered @dnso for the
>everything submitted version contains a bias. The more descriptive,
>unbiased approach would be to name the two lists email@example.com
>firstname.lastname@example.org, so that people could decide for themselves
>version they felt was the one true version on which they choose to
>participate. Otherwise, believe people will subscribe to the shorter
>on the assumption that it is the general all-inclusive version.
There's a question of "naming" and a question of "usage".
I personally believe, but I may stand corrected by statistics once we
will have them, that the "filtered" list will be the "work" list, i.e.
the one where most of the debate will take place anyhow, and that most
of the people will subscribe to, while the "unfiltered" list will be
like a "log", that people may want to check only under specific
circumstances (like to check if a filtering action was justified).
I will not fight to death for the name (I am not very sensible to the
form), but my first assumption is that the shorter name should go to the
most used list.
>And that raises the question of how we respond to messages if I am
>the unfiltered version and you are not. All headers would have to read
>email@example.com, would they not? Now there's a reason to give
>shorter name to the all-inclusive version.
I am assuming that whatever you specify, it goes to the "unfiltered",
and then to the "filtered" IIF it passes the filter, no matter what you
>BTW, if you assert that mail sent to the announce list is considered to
>published to the GA membership, then firstname.lastname@example.org = the GA
>membership, does it not?
This sentence is, I believe, taken from the Bylaws, and serves the only
purpose of a disclaimer: people are free to subscribe to "announce",
therefore the DNSO will not make any additional effort in reaching
Sort of what most countries do when legislation is passed: it is
published in some official site (www.dnso.org, in the case under
examination) and in some official magazine (ga-announce, in the case)
that you can subscribe to.
Under no circumstance would governments imply that the legislation does
not affect you if you are not a subscriber or if you did not check the
site. Similarly, the DNSO considers to have "reached" the community with
the two actions.
>The problem with having a number of lists comprising the GA membership
>that there is no one place to gather. You will never be able to have
>all-inclusive discussion for the GA, take any votes, or make any
>if you don't bring all the voices together on one list. Right now
>are, arguably, at least eight lists that could collectively comprise
>(consitituencies, GA, GA-announce). How can you gain any consensus on
>issues from that distribution? It's like the horse that was designed
>committee: we know it as a camel.
OTOH, either we assume that the "active core" of the GA will remain of
the same limited size as today, or we have to admit that one single all-
comprehensive mailing list will be unmanageable, and we have to figure
out different solutions.
Of course, the question of voting is different: to send a ballot on a
list does not necessarily means that this list behaves as a discussion
list. In practice, you can well have a list of subscribers, union of all
mailing lists, that the "votemaster" only can post to, and the ballots
will go to the sender only and not "Urbi et Orbi".