RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-web] RE: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [atlarge-panel] Web Site Updates?

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Jeff Williams wrote:

|    No, we had an ongoing election from within the WG-WEB underway
|  and later Jefsey could not seem to get the candidates properly listed.
|  So no appointment by the panel can possibly be considered legitimate
|  as the Panels mandate does not include appointing anyone to any
|  Working Group.

No, but our mandate did include replacing Joop as Webmaster.  That was a
wholly separate issue from electing the WG-Web chair.  I was simply
suggesting Brett for the chair position, not trying to mandate anything.  As
you know, I've been a strong aedvocate that the *membership* should be
leading the charge in the WGs.  The WG-Web is always free to select its own
leadership from within its membership.

|    He already has gone rogue to a small degree.  And it has been pointed
|  out that he has.  Hence, either you have not been paying close attention,
|  Bruce, which frankly somewhat surprises me, or some other problem yet to
|  be defined or known exists in this particular regard.

Actually, he didn't "go rogue".  He responded to a Panel request to update
the site.  In fact, I sustenct that part of the reason the site is still out
of date is because Brett is not willing to move without a clear mandate, and
perhaps WG-Web should give hime some direction?

|  And NO, the Web Master is accountable to the WG-WEG ONLY, as the Panel
has
|  no authority to oversee web master functions as that is not in
|  the Mandate or the Panel via the election of the panel by the members.

I seem to remember language to the contrary in the interim rules set forth
before the first panel election, but I won't waste time looking for it
tonight.  Perhaps one of the other Panel members could verify this?

|  No they don't need to be rolled into the bylaws at this
|  juncture.  If you
|  contend so, please state clearly, concisely and directly as to
|  why at this
|  particular juncture they need to be?

There is an old saw: if you don't write it down it doesn't exist.  Any rules
we operate under must, if they are to be rules, be written in the bylaws, or
they aren't really rules, just staff policies.  I think we've all had enough
of staff policies!  But I agree that they don't need to be part of our
bylaws initially.  But WG-Web needs to buckle down and create interim Web
site management rules very soon.  Again, I cioncur with Joanna's suggestion
that the document Jaz-Michael King posted be our starting point in that
effort.  It needs work, but it's a very good start.

|    No, he should have some control as to when he can make the updates,
|  NOT what should be updated or added as the Web site reflects on the
|  organization as a whole and speaks to a great degree for the members.

This is true of things that reflect policies of this group.  But he can
certianly keep membership and Panel members up to date, and should have
already done so.  He shoiuld also be free to post news items of interest to
our membership.  Both of these are facts, not policies.  As for the rest, at
what point is WG-Web going to exercise their franchise and direct said
changes?  We need the site kept up to date.  If you assert that WG-Web is
responsible to direct that (and I agree!), then we know who is to blame for
it being the way it currently is, don't we? :)

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!


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