Re: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 004 - E-mail group and administrivia *with PROPOSAL

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all stakeholders, WG-Outreach participants, and members,

Richard Henderson wrote:

> To get some clarity in order to press on, I'd like to ask a "stupid"
> question to the panel and everyone else.

  Remember the only "Stupid" question is the one you don't ask.
But thank you Richard for taking the initiative to share this with
all of the members.  I know that some or our members have
voiced concerns regarding potential "Clutterig" of the Discuss list
here.
( More below your comments/observations and questions )

>
>
> I think there is a view that the WG-OUTREACH would do well to transfer its
> correspondence 'off' our overcrowded discuss and panel lists, to address
> some of the outreach-specific issues and tasks, while obviously wanting to
> archive any correspondence on any alternative list for the purposes of
> transparency, and while also retaining a responsibility to report back
> clearly and regularly to the panel and membership as a whole.

  Yes, transparency and don't forget accountability are very important
for these WG's.  However I don't see a need to report to the panel
if such reports are sent to the Discuss list as all Panel members
are supposed to be subscribed to the discuss list.  In addition,
outreach is not a mandated task of the Panel, hence the members
should be taking the lead on oversight of whatever the WG-Outreach
reports back.  We also must or should be sure that any member can
provide input to WG-Outreach as well as members will be a prime
source of gaining members and associations with other groups.

>
>
> This might just be a simple do-today matter of subscribing to a list.

  It is.  It will however require some ML software installed for our
DN ICANNATLARGE.ORG...

>
>
> My "stupid" question is this : Have we, as participants, got the right and
> sanction of the whole organisation to just go ahead and start a list for
> outreach (in the absence of anyone producing anything else) or do we have to
> wait for a general policy decision to be taken on what lists and where, for
> ALL the working groups?
>
> OK - that's my question.

  Good question.  Simple answer is much along the lines of the previous
Panel Chair Joanna.  We don't need permission for this sort of thing.
What we do need is ML software installed for our DN,
ICANNATLARGE.ORG.  This will require that the proper ML
software be downloaded, installed and implemented properly.  As you
know Richard, I have offered to do this should Bret, or new webmaster
be unable to do so, or need assistance, on the WG-Outreach contrived list
(without ML software or a basic CC list of WG-Outreach members )
proposed and hastily but effectively and temporarily constructed by Judyth.

>
>
> Could anyone who thinks we should not/ must not go ahead and just start a
> list, please express your views (which are, of course, welcome).
>
> Otherwise, I guess the answer to my "stupid" question is: people are happy
> for us as a WG-OUTREACH to just get on and mobilise and get on with things
> on a list (albeit we are mostly agreed that we should act intelligently and
> cautiously until we have a more clearly-defined product to 'sell').

  As you know Richard, we already have a product to sell as we have
an organization all be it that Judyth seems to feel otherwise as she has
expressed in the CC-List WG-Outreach, which you seem to be referring
to here ( Almost using her very words I might add ).

> There is
> so much we *could* be getting on and doing in preparation that I think it
> would be a pity if we drifted on for another 2 months and *then* had to
> start from scratch.

  I agree.  And that is why in part why we must start out on the right
foot.  Hence, installing ML software for the WG's including WG-Outreach
is so important.  Without doing so we take a great risk of loosing
ground before we get very far as there will be engendered lack of
trust due to no archives and transparency, and accountability.

>
>
> Can we / should we set up an Outreach list now? And if we should have the
> Panel's sanction first:
>
> "I PROPOSE the motion that the Outreach WG can proceed to set up a list to
> better carry out its duties."

  No.  We should and can set up with ML software such as Majordomo,
MailMan or lyris, WG lists for these WG's including WG-Outreach
without Panel approval as this is not a mandated Panel function
or Panel WG/committee..

>
>
> Maybe this Motion isn't even necessary. Tell me what you think.
>
> Richard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 7:12 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] WG-OUTREACH 004 - E-mail group and administrivia
>
> At 08:22 -0400 2002/10/21, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >Since some movers and shakers seem to have migrated to WG-OUTREACH, it does
> >not seem unreasonable to send the work to where it will receive some
> >attention.
> >
> >What a good idea, Judyth.
>
> Thanks, Ron! I thought perhaps we could get list-traffic down to bearable
> while ensuring that the right ideas were sent to the right groups.
>
> Here (thanks to Richard who came through with Gabriel's address) is the
> official WG-OUTREACH membership list, in alphabetical order by surname.
>
> Joey Borda <starwalker@gay.com>,
> Satyajit Gupta <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>,
> Richard Henderson [Chair] <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>,
> Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe>,
> Judyth Mermelstein <espresso@e-scape.net>
> Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@mail.club-internet.fr>,
> YJ Park <yjpark@myepark.com>,
> Gabriel Pineiro <gpineiro@derecho.org.ar>,
> Roberto Roggiero <roberto@roggiero.net>,
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>,
> Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>,
> Jeff Williams  <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>,
> Bruce Young <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
>
> In the absence of any other offers, I volunteer my services as "recording
> secretary" so as to make sure this list is updated when necessary and
> there's some admonistrative backup to the discussions.
>
> However, my equipment setup is not lavish so I cannot promise to archive the
> WG-O's discussions indefinitely on it. Perhaps somebody with more hard disk
> space could take that on, or perhaps the Webmaster and WG-WEB could arrange
> to have to messages archived on the existing site if we send them along?
> Just another little idea...
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> ##########################################################
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de