Re: [ga] [fwd] Steering Group for icannatlarge.com. (from: firstname.lastname@example.org)
At 21:59 28/02/02 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>[Note: This is Thomas' stating his personal opinion, and not the chair of
>the GA speaking in that capacity.]
>On 2002-02-28 11:50:07 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>> So where did this Steering Group come from?
>I suggested it, and Joop accepted it, with minor modifications. I then
>set up the mailing list and web archive.
>> Especially since three of its "members" have evidently not
>> even registered for membership in ICANN-AT-LARGE! (Aizu,
>> Hofmann, and Wong). Talk about a setup! There are grave
>> political mistakes being made here already, which should have been
>> thought through.
>Most of your criticism is (generally) well-taken, but, at this point of
>time, besides the point.
>Right now, a lot of "minor" "implementation" details on the site can quite
>well have an influence on what happens. Think about what the options are:
>Not doing anything is certainly _not_ an option. Following the (good!)
>process you describe in your posting requires a certain number of members
>to sign up, which means that some time will go by.
>Until then, you have very few choices, when it comes to implementation
>decisions which may turn out to be crucial (in particular when there is no
>clear input from the relevant community, yet): Either, the individual in
>charge of the implementation is going to make lonely decisions. Possibly
>after having received feed-back behind the scenes, from those he bothers
>to ask, possibly after having listened to some mailing lists or web
>forums. But, ultimately, he's making decisions of his own, and he's the
>only one in charge of important details.
>Or, there is some group of (hopefully) respected individuals who give that
>feed-back in a publicly visible way, and a commitment of the implementor
>to follow the advice of that group.
>I very much prefer the second option over the first one, which is why I
>worked to implement it. (I do, in particular, prefer that second option
>when we are talking about the single effort which seems to be getting most
>of the attention. Because, in this case, the third option (namely, to let
>the effort fail) would cause considerable harm, and should not be choosen.)
> This steering group is a quick stop-gap measure.
>(OK, maybe we should have called it something else, but I had to think
>about a quick name for that mailing list. atlarge-cabal didn't sound
>Please look at it that way, and please work to make it unnecessary by
>joining the membership, and helping it to gain momentum. In particular,
>I'd like to ask you to put your comment about the "statements" policy
>(which, BTW, was the implementor's decision) into one of the forums.
I agree completely with all Thomas' comments here.
I will seek the consent of the editorial Panel for any website decision
that may have consequences for the direction of the At Large.
I will seek ratification of the decisions that are already inherent ion the
The Forum is flexible and any one of you can create threads on subjects
that have priority.
A living, serious forum is what we have to show the Board in Accra.
Tell it around on every ML, make every friend sign up two more and quickly
reach critical mass so that democracy can kick in and you elect your own
preferred webmaster under rules that you have all agreed on.
Bootstrapping is not democratic, but the structure is open and it's up to
you all to help create a democratic and transparent one.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html