[atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-OUTREACH 003 - Update and Action List

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

Judyth and all,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 14:59 -0700 2002/10/22, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >  If you are believer in open and transparent discourse and discussion, why
> >on earth or on the internet would you wan to to filter anyone out, Judyth?  >;)
>
> ;-) indeed! Perhaps because after a certain point some of us are ready to discount what you say after hearing a little too much egregious nonsense?

  Egregious indeed? Hummm?  Sounds more like sour grapes here Judyth.
I had hoped that such was beneath you.  I guess I was mistaken...  :(

>
>
> > So Judyth, what are we? or What is ICANNATLARGE.ORG or
> >was ICANNATLARGE.COM?  You say " we have over 1000
> >"members" who registered at icaanatlarge.com but no entity for
> >them to be members of except this discussion list." and ergo are
> >just a bunch of folks that are members of a mailing list.  I say
> >that we are a group of individuals wishing to form a better
> >and more perfect union/organization, that JOINED originally
> >ICANNATLARGE.COM see:http://icannatlarge.com/register.php
> >and now can JOIN at:  http://icannatlarge.org/register.php
> >Hence Judyth, I think it is sufficient to assume or say that
> >we are already an organization, which was my contention...
>
> I think what we are, if we are anything more than a "freedom to flame" outlet, is a group of people *trying* to found a viable organization -- that is, one with a mission, a charter, a democratic process for electing its representatives and approving its documents, the means of drafting meaningful reports and statements for wider circulation, etc., etc.

  Ok.  Well than haven't we already shown with the election of the Panel
and the vote on our DN that we are a viable organization by this cryptic
but understandable definition your roughly typed out here?  I think, as
did Richard, and all that did vote thus far, believe so.  So I thank you for
this interesting, cryptic, but "Barelyadaquate.info" definition, Judyth! >;)
And still we remain than a viable organization, although not yet structured,
with bylaws, charter, and mission statement, but a viable organization none
the less.

>
>
> Repeating "JOIN" in all caps does not mean that everyone who filled in a Web form knew what they were joining or made a commitment to be part of the organizing effort.

  Oh?  And how do you come to this conclusion?  I don't see or have not yet
seen anyone or member that has joined other then you here, that seem to
believe this.  If so, than please point them out for all to know and perhaps
they can be adequately helped or help the rest of those that have JOINED!  >;)

> This is not merely a "non incorporated organization" (of which I know many very effective ones) but a disorganized collection of people with different visions and different degrees of organizational skill.

  Better here Judyth, but not yet quite there I would wager.  And yes at least
now we agree on the "non incorporated organization" part.  So we do have
something to "Sell" than don't we...  >;)  And we have room to grow as well
as determine amongst ourselves and new members to do so.

>
>
> >> You've misunderstood me. I was referring to Richard Henderson, who is the Chair of the WG-Outreach and who posted a quite comprehensive list of things the WG-Outreach might want to get on with.
> >
> >  Oh, I did not know that Richard was elected to that post.  When did this >occur?
>
> If you go back to the list archives, you will see that Richard volunteered to organize an Outreach working group and the rest of us volunteered to sit on it. That's how *you* got here, by the way!

  No Joanna did that, not Richard.  Richard did wish to get busy on it in particular
on outreach, yes.  But in any event, such does in no way, make him the "Chair"
of this WG.

>
>
> >> How I meant that is simple, too. There is no need to delay everything >>while this discussion list ranges through all possible subjects, or to >>wait for the installation of list software in an as-yet-undetermined form >>and location.
> >
> >  The location is of course obvious.  That should be ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
> >The form should be up to us, and as I stated above, should be our decision
> >if the software used it free, which Majordomo is.  Hence, no problem to
> >solve here, it is already solved for us, unless you have another suggestion
> >for free ML software that Bret can install?  As I have installed Majordomo
> >Lyris, and Mailman, I can do this if Bret has trouble or does not know
> >how to as well..
>
> The "location" is not so obvious to me -- "ICANNATLARGE.ORG" is a domain name not a particular server to which you or I have access or which we have permission to use however we please.

  I believe that we do as Marc did give us the Domain Judyth, if you recall.
If it is not on a server that we can install the necessary ML software, as Bret has the
Password Keys to do, than what is it that would prevent such a installation?

> The mailing list software could just as easily be installed on some other server, with links on the main site.

  No not as easily and not as easy to link to either as too many hops when posting
could become a problem for some WG-Outreach members such as YJ, Erick,
and Satyajit for instance.

>
>
> >> A dozen-or-so people in a Working Group can just correspond amongst >>themselves using the capabilities of their own e-mail software, and start >>holding more focussed discussions on specific points so as to be able >>eventually to make recommendations to the whole membership.
> >
> >  Yes we sure can.  However as I stated and have experienced, such would
> >be ill advisable for very long without ML software as there will be no >transparency, or accountability in that there is no archive...
>
> As you should already know by now, it is entirely possible for WG posts to be archived otherwise -- for example, by individual committee members keeping their copies, and by uploading the files to a Web site which does not necessarily have an automated mailing list software installed.

  True.  But is such being done presently?  As far as I know, no.  Has it yet
been mentioned until you just did?  No, not to my knowledge.  Hence
it is unlikely that it will be done.  It is also very unreliable.

>
>
> If I ever get some time off debating with you, I just might have some time to set up my own Web space so that it can be used for the purpose. Or perhaps somebody else will have a couple of MB to spare. Or perhaps one of these days Bret and the rest of them will be ready to say "Yes, we've set up a mailing list software for our WG lists".

  I have all the room you could possibly need.  So, let me know I can get the
space you need no problem.  Bret can do this now is my point Judyth.
If he cannot or need help I can get it done in about two hours, maybe less.
I can do it with Bret observing, or not, his choice of course.  Hence there
is not REAL need for delay.  That does not mean however there is some
desire for creating delay however.

>
>
> In a nutshell, I don't give a **** what the mechanics are: I just want us to take some concrete steps towards creating that organization we keep talking about.

  I sense some frustration here from you Judyth.  That is not a good
trait for a potential secretariat of any WG...  So cool down...

> There IS transparency -- everything material discussed in this WG will be reported to all members, whether through an automated archive or otherwise.

  That's nonsense Judyth and you know it...  So please try to be honest at least.

> There IS accountability -- this WG was created at the desire of members and is empowered to discuss and recommend but the decisions rest with the membership.

  Again that too is nonsense.  Accountability requires or demands not infers,
all of the posts be available for all to review, not just some of them or just the
reports.  Now you are sounding allot like the ICANN staff's method...
I don't think we want that sort of process repeated.

>
>
> >> I think that can safely be left to the working groups themselves: when they have something constructive to say to the whole group, they will. If the group wants to specify that reports be issued weekly or monthly, it can and the WGs would no doubt comply.
> >
> >  This seems incomplete. Perhaps my statement was also not complete enough.
> >I shall restate or again ask it differently.  How do we as a WG determine
> >what is "Worth Reporting", what are the criterion, and how do we decide
> >what those criterion are?
>
> Well, for starters, there seems to be no point reporting that you are doing your best to prevent us from discussing the agenda Richard suggested ;-) nor that the other people in the WG would prefer to get on with our job.

  So far only three have posted including you and me.  So you contention here
again is yet another vague attempt to create a problem when there is none.
Please try to be constructive...

> When our discussions have led to a vote or consensus on what to recommend as an Outreach strategy, or what it is and is not useful to do immediately, we'll report it promptly and open the discussion to the whole group.

  This is fine.

>
>
> >> Thanks. My suggestion *was* about "housekeeping" issues -- that is, instead of throwing everything into one big messy pot, let's put each "dish" to simmer in its own pot at the right heat so we eventually can put a palatable meal on the communal table.
> >
> >  Nicely put here!  >;)
>
> Thank you, Jeff. Now would you **please** stop running around salting everything at random and concentrate with the rest of us on figuring out what we can usefully do before the mission and bylaws are finalized???

  I did.  That being that we need to FIRST create a ML for this WG and other
WG's with ML software installed for our DN ICANNATLARGE.ORG.
Or did you miss that Judyth?  So NOW Judyth would you PLEASE
try to pay better attention, and stay in keeping with as well as grow
from what we the members have already made progress on.  That
being a democratic organization, with two good votes under our belts,
and a rough idea as to where we can go, can do, and some things
we wish to accomplish?  Do you think you can positively participate
in such a positive direction Judyth?  I think you can if you want to.
But you have to want to.... E Plurbis Unium - From many, one...  >;)

>
>
> 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