[atlarge-discuss] Technical Re: Jeff WIlliams Re: [Outreach]

[espresso@e-scape.net]

I am answering this particular message primarily for the benefit of individuals who don't already understand how mailing lists and URLs work. The rest of you moght want to hit the delete key about now...

At 18:57 -0700 2002/10/23, Jeff Williams wrote:
>espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
[snip]
>> An invitation has gone out to the membership asking those interested to subscribe. A number of postings from the [atlarge-discuss] relating to outreach questions have already been archived, as well as messages posted to the [Outreach] list directly.
>
>  Yes this is accurate to a point.  However those messages did not include
>nor mention anything of the nature of using a DN that is NOT our
>organizations DN which is again ICANNATLARGE.ORG.  Hence
>you are attempting a bit of spin here or you are very forgetful...

Not at all, Jeff. For one thing, I assume that our members and other interested parties will be 

a) reasonably literate -- in English for now, but we can provide the Mailam subscription instructions in many languages on ICANNATLARGE.ORG once we need to, with a link to the Mailman subscription pages for our lists

b) sufficiently accustomed to using the Internet that the concept of using hyperlinks won't disturb them as much as it seems to disturb you.

>  Not must, but should.  Sure we can run a ML from any server that
>will host such a ML.  But how does that look or seem as to our
>creditability, Judyth?  I think it makes us look like a bunch of
>silly fools or worse...

I really don't see why. The World Bank didn't feel diminished by using Lyris on an external server for its mailing lists for several years. Many other organizations simply use the free lists on Yahoo or Topica and don't even worry about the ads in their messages looking bad.

>> Since delivery is by e-mail, browser and connection problems over "too many redirects" should not arise, especially since we're not talking about multiple redirects to get from the main site to the list subscription page.
>
>  This isn't what I was referencing Judyth.  Your not paying attention >again. Please try to.  I was AGAIN referencing that some of our WG-Outreach
>members will have trouble sending E-Mail from the server this list
>of Jefsey's (Note, not this organizations) due to too many hops.

I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all. 

1) Unlike most North Americans interested in Internet matters, I use "antique" Macs ("Classic" now being the term for OS 9 while this old machine uses 7.5) with a limited-hours dial-up connection on an ancient phone line that gets staticky when it rains. I'm also still using Eudora Light 3.1.3. In the past 3-4 years, I've received only one "too many redirects" bounce on an e-mail message (out of many thousands of messages) and that was due to an incorrect configuration at the user's ISP. Messages to [Outreach] show no such problem.

2) Too many redirects *are* a problem for older browsers, but not to the extent that one can't use a normal URL to get to another site. (If that were the case, I could never have got here!) As Eric mentioned, the Mailman installation on icann-at-large.org is not a problem even from Viet Nam. I even tried it with my trusty text-only browser.

3) One doesn't normally have to send e-mail from the organization's Web hosting server to send a message to one of its lists. The "mailto:"; links on our main site are just a device by which the sender uses his or her own e-mail software and account to a specified address -- the mail doesn't go through the ICANNATLARGE.ORG server at all! 

4) Posting to a Mailman list does not require visiting the site it is hosted on: although there is a Web page for subscription, one can also request the "help" file and get instructions for subscribing by e-mail only.

In the future, if we go ahead with the idea of offering e-mail accounts to members who need them, I am sure we will do so in a way which allows members to send mail wherever they want to. In the meantime, if anyone has a problem subscribing, they can ask here or e-mail anyone on the WG-Outreach for help.

>Still in any event,
>ICANN-AT-LARGE is NOT the DN that we all voted for as our
>web site DN presence.  Hence we are by using this DN confusing
>or potentially confusing future members as well as the public at-large,
>if you will be so kind as to pardon the obvious irony...

Web site domain name is one thing and server configuration quite another. Most sites of any size use multiple servers, not all of which need to be the domain name servers. Visit http://www.cnet.com for a perfect example -- their lists are now (as of last month, I think) within the cnet.com domain but their Mac downloads are at downloadcom.com and other bits and pieces are elsewhere. The editors.ca site has its online directory on one external site and the branches' pages are on several other ones around the country. Most people never notice at all. The ones who do usually have enough Internet-savvy to want to filter out ads and block cookies from third-party sites, so they wouldn't find an external link confusing.

Do you mean *you* are confused as to how this works, Jeff? If so, I'd be happy to explain it -- off-list, so as not to bore the rest of the group.

>  I have no problem with anyone being the secretary Judyth.  I hope that
>you did not have or gather that impression from anything I said.  What I DO
>have a problem with is that if as an organization that holds the democratic
>principals as central to our organization, that such positions be decided
>by those that they may effect.  In this case, or the case of the >WG-Outreach, the members of this WG should make that decision.  

I agree in principle. I simply offered to do it because in practice most people on committees would rather die than take minutes.

>Personally I feel that
>it would be better if we had only one secretary for the organization
>as a whole, and that secretary would be on all of the WG's so as to
>better be able to properly conduct that function.  

I think you misunderstand the situation here. The Secretary of the organization as a whole is the recording secretary for the board or executive council, as well as the person responsible for maintaining the membership records, dealing with correspondence for the organization as a whole, and usually various other day-to-day duties. Doing that properly does not depend on the same person also trying to be recording secretary for all the organization's committees. 

Besides, with committees meeting by e-mail on an ongoing basis, doing that would undoubtedly mean the Secretary could not do any other work. However, as an elected officer and director of a non-profit organization, the Secretary cannot be compensated for fulfilling his/her duties. Few organizations have an independently-wealthy person who can work for them full-time (or more) without payment.

It simply makes more sense, then, to let the organization's Secretary concentrate on his/her real job and let somebody from each committee serve as its secretary.

>> Of course, if you like, we can have an election within the WG-Outreach to see who gets to do it ... especially if you'd care to volunteer your own services.
>
>  I can do pretty much whatever needs to get done.  All anyone needs to do
>is ask.  If I have conflicting schedules I will say so in short order, if >not I will proceed ASAP.

Whoa, Jeff! If we need to elect a recording secretary for Outreach, then let's do so. I see no particularly democratic advantage in you appointing yourself because you don't want me to appoint myself!

>> But, given that archiving is now automated and anyone who likes can read the postings, subscribe and participate in WG-Outreach, I expect the role of "Secretariat" will come down to answering the usual "how do I subscribe" questions and drafting periodic summaries of the discussion which will be approved by the WG before being published to the world.
>
>  Perhaps so.  However I think that the secretariat may have some Web
>site duties as well for reports and the like...

I don't see why. We have a webmaster and WG-Web to handle the site, and all one needs to do is send them a report for posting. It's probably unwise to have half-a-dozen people FTPing stuff onto the site at will if we want the site to work properly and look professional.

>> Meanwhile, please note that since everyone on WG-Outreach is also receiving this general discussion list, there is no need to "cc" the Outreach list when you post to this one. Those of us who have limited connection time and disk space would really appreciate not getting unnecessary duplicates since the traffic here is already pretty high.
>
>  Ok I will post a summary every week on Friday than.  How's that?  >;)

Excellent ... but doesn't the Outreach committee need to elect you first?

Tongue firmly in cheek,

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."
##########################################################



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