On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 14:08, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote: > Stephen Waters wrote: > > > 2 things: > > > > 1. I have to say I agree with David that I think you're too prone to > > flaming to be a content submitter to the website *qua* webmaster. > > I consider it "shaming" as opposed to "flaming", anyway, here in Canada we have a > saying: 'Where there's smoke there's fire...' Stephen, some of us have been at this > grind (i.e. achieving user representation in ICANN) for several years now. Many of us > have pretty much had it with some of the pathological committee sitting personalities > who stand for election, get elected, and then do NOTHING but repeat themselves > endlessly or make token commitments while obstructing any meaningful or substantive > work from getting done. If I speak up and criticize a Panel Member, it is my right as > a member to do so, and I do so because I firmly believe they are doing something wrong > (or nothing at all, which is even worse!). OTOH, if I were to be webmaster for this > organization (*which currently I am not*) then that would entail a different > comportment with respect to what content is incorporated on the site, and my attitude > to the work *qua* work would most certainly be of the highest professional standards. > What I say as a member and what I'd do as a webmaster are two divergent scenarios, > please dn't confuse the two. One cannot base one's opinion of my performance of the > latter based on my activities as the former, it would be a false inference. The simple > fact is that I want to see the work get done, and when it's not being done I will shame > those who stepped forward promising to do the job. That is my right as a member and > nobody can circumscribe my personal right to express myself as a member. But, as > webmaster, I would certainly avoid using such a position as a platform for my own > individual views as I would not be acting responsibly nor professionally if I were to > do so. Let me also state, for the record, that I agree with Jeff Williams that the term > "diplomacy" is often a mask for the term "bullshit". When it comes to my right as a > member to express myself on an individual basis, pardon me, but I will not shovel shit. Philosophically speaking, we make judgements based on heuristics. Even as you've learned that often "diplomacy is often a mask for bullshit", I've learned that "you attract flies with honey". Let's assume for a moment that your negative arguments are valid. What makes you think people are going to pay attention to you if you go on to use inflammatory language to criticize them in addition to the core argument? Argue the point and get on with it. Ad hominem adds nothing. I, for one, do not support or elect people based on negative campaigning. I imagine Panel members of a voluntary organization daily subject to public criticism in the midst of their personal workload and familial responsibilities will respond to ad hominem even less. I would certainly be reluctant to hire a person for a job if they flamed me in public about something beyond my control. I would think to myself "Does not play well with others. Cannot be trusted to do the job right." You don't really believe some Panel members have been absent out of laze, do you? While I agree they should excuse themselves or designate a proxy, unfortunately we're in sort of a Catch-22 here with lacking procedures, participation guidelines, etc. We need them to do something but they're in a bind and unable to do what we need, and we have no procedure yet for overruling that situation. . Does yelling about it do anything at all to solve the Catch-22? . Does sending repeated mails to the list regarding Gupta's absence make him any more likely to show up? . Does your manner make the Panel more or less likely to think you'd use the website as a bully pulpit? > > However, as an individual that's fine, of course. > > > > 2. The Slashcode-ish look is ok. You really need to change those <td > > bgcolor="#ffffff"> backgrounds to delineate between various content > > spaces, though. > > That is not a problem. The site I sent you all to look at is a mock-up of a possible > layout, not a finished product. > > > Personally, I prefer CSS to bgcolor declarations (easier > > on the file downloads, too...) but users of ancient browsers may need > > this deprecated crutch. > > We're trying to be inclusive here Stephen, I've been to public libraries here in > Toronto that are still running older browsers that do not render CSS correctly. I've > even left out unecessary graphics for those on slow connections... Anyway, it was an > example of what can be done, not what must be done. But, has anyone else offered up > another option? No one has, as far as I know. I was just offering constructive criticism. $0.02USD -s > > On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 17:06, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote: > > > http://www.worldatlarge.org/index.php > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos > > > > > > Hans Klein wrote: > > > > > > > Sotiris, > > > > > > > > If you have a mock-up web site, I am sure we would all be eager to see it. > > > > > > > > Can you post the URL? > > > > > > > > Hans > > > > > > > > At 02:15 PM 10/16/2002 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote: > > > > >DannyYounger@cs.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Jamie, > > > > > > > > > > > > Before you begin questioning the relationship between established user > > > > > > organizations and ICANN, you might want to ask if your own group, > > > > > without any > > > > > > organizational documents, without even a mission statement, bylaws or > > > > > > charter, even qualifies as an organization suitable for recognition as an > > > > > > at-large structure. > > > > > > > > > >Perhaps a dis-organization, then? Especially of late. > > > > > > > > > >Before I received this email from Danny, I was about to post a link to the > > > > >list > > > > >directing all of you to a mock-up web site which Hans requested I put together > > > > >(even though I had ALREADY set up the PHPNuke site for all of you to view a > > > > >couple months ago! Remember that ladies and gentlemen?!? Check the > > > > >archives, if > > > > >you like...). However, having read Danny's email I stopped myself and > > > > >decided to > > > > >visit the Panel's closed list archive for a look at how our leaders are going > > > > >about the business of this "organization". Much to my surprise, I saw a > > > > >motion > > > > >from Jamie Love (seconded by Hans Klein) to make Brett Faussett the new > > > > >webmaster. No offense against Brett, but where's he been for the last couple > > > > >months? I didn't hear him volunteering his services when a new webmaster was > > > > >being sought. Or, ( as is probably the case) is this some kind of a > > > > >compromise > > > > >selection to placate Joop? In any case, if this is the direction the Panel > > > > >wishes to take, then I wish them all the power in the world. However, I > > > > >cannot > > > > >for a moment understand why the WG-Web members (of which I am one) were not > > > > >consulted? > > > > > > > > > > > As per the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform's Second Interim > > > > > > Implementation Report: "We agree that individual at large entities should > > > > > > meet some "accreditation" standard, and we find the criteria and standards > > > > > > recommended by the Assistance Group to be an attractive list." > > > > > > > > > > > > This "list" stipulates structured, self-sustaining entities that engage in > > > > > > outreach and post current information about the organization's aims, > > > > > > structure, constituents, working mechanisms, and current leadership. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Your aims are not posted > > > > > > > > > >To date I submitted TWO different versions of Mission Statements for this > > > > >organization (both several months ago) which elicited next to no comments, and > > > > >yet there is still no substantive work produced by the 'power elite' among > > > > >us on > > > > >this issue. Shameful. This and the webmaster issue noted above are enough to > > > > >put off persons (such as myself) who are willing to contribute > > > > >substantively... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. You have no organizational structure > > > > > > > > > >Oh, but we do... dis-organization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. You are not self-sustaining > > > > > > > > > >If bombast and self-important bluster were the fuel of the day, I'd say we're > > > > >self-perpetuating rather than self-sustaining. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. You have no established working mechanisms or procedures for the > > > > > general > > > > > > membership > > > > > > > > > >Why bother, that would detract from the nominal importance of our Panel > > > > >Members... BTW, Danny, have you perhaps heard anything from that champion > > > > >of the > > > > >common netizens, Satyajit Gupta? I wonder if the other Panel Members > > > > >approve of > > > > >his delinquency? If not, then why are there no steps being taken to > > > > >replace him? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. You can't document any organizational outreach activities > > > > > > > > > >Well, you might have something there. Perhaps Richard Henderson can fill > > > > >us in > > > > >on the progress towards the 100, 000 membership base he promised. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After you get your own house in order, then feel free to question the > > > > > > relationship of ISOC chapters to ICANN -- they at least meet the minimum > > > > > > criteria expected for an at-large structure. > > > > > > > > > >Except for the fact that they are now a Registry operator, which puts them > > > > >in the > > > > >gTLD constituency... > > > > > > > > > >Seriously Disappointed, > > > > > > > > > >Sotiris Sotiropoulos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de > > > > >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de > > > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Name: signature.asc > > signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature > > Description: This is a digitally signed message part > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part