RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Since the panel discusses matters pertaining the organization for and on
behalf of the members as well as the organization, these members have a
right to scrutinize everything that panel does. Discussing matters in
private does not allow for the members to "judge" whether their
representative does his job as he or she should, a right they have.
The world wide equivalents of the freedom of information act allows
people to scrutinize their governement, at least in my parts of the
world, their debates are televised, and stenographers make notes that
are published the next day (literally).

Who are we, but modest panelmembers of an organization to be, to
consider what we do more important then those we elect to run our
country and hence act in "private" which translates into "secrecy". What
is it we would have to hide from those that elected us in the first
place?

Over half the discussions on the general list are at this moment a
result from people reading the panel lists and having comments, opinions
or questions. It is a good thing to act in the open.

I see no reason, except for the Verif. Comm. Which handles personal
data, to do anything outside the view of the members.

This of course does not disallow "side-bars" where individuals talk to
other individuals to either "test the waters" or "seek consultation"
before finalizing their opinion.

One can not demand that a panel member, comm member or "any" member for
that matter opens up his mailbox for scrutiny.

Kind regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: A/S Mauro D. Ríos [mailto:mdrios@adinet.com.uy] 
> Sent: 13 July 2003 03:22
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> The Panel needs a discussion environment in private, it can 
> be a forum, a list or a chat, the advantages or not of each 
> suggested means it will be seen in each case. But it is 
> necessary to maintain an environment at least where the Panel 
> can "to meet" in private.
> 
> EVERYTHING cannot be discussed with the mass of members, it 
> is not effective and not very executive to obtain results of 
> the performance of this Panel. But CARE, this doesn't mean 
> that the Panel doesn't have the OBLIGATION of giving to know 
> EVERYTHING to the members and to put to voting or 
> consideration the transcendent topics (this will be 
> established in the statutes). .......................................
> [ES] El Panel necesita un ámbito de discusión en privado, 
> puede ser un foro, una lista o un chat, las ventajas o no de 
> cada medio sugerido se verá en cada caso. Pero es necesario 
> mantener al menos un ámbito donde el Panel pueda "reunirse" 
> en privado.
> 
> TODO no puede ser discutido con la masa de miembros, no es 
> efectivo y poco ejecutivo para obtener resultados de la 
> actuación de este Panel. Pero CUIDADO, esto no quiere decir 
> que el Panel no tenga la OBLIGACION de dar a conocer TODO a 
> los miembros y poner a votación o consideración los temas 
> trascendentes (esto deberá ser establecido en los estatutos).
> 
> greetings,
> Mauro.-
> 
> ----- Mensaje original -----
> De: Jeff Holt
> Para: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Enviado: Sábado, 12 de Julio de 2003 06:27 p.m.
> Asunto: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
> 
> 
> RE: Regarding the Private Webteam Forum topic vs. the General 
> Webteam Topic.
> 
> I agree with Hugh that there is a need for some technical 
> information to be secure from public view, such as URLs and 
> debugging information.  I believe it might also be possible 
> to hide the existence of that closed forum, but will defer 
> that to Mr. Chirita to research and implement. Abel does have 
> a point in that seeing a "private" forum and not being able 
> to access it will be like holding a candy over the reach of a 
> young child, they will try and jump to get it, lol....
> 
> The General Webteam topic should be used for the general 
> membership to make contributions, suggestions, or trouble 
> reports and as such must be open to the entire membership.  
> The semantics may be the only difficulty
> - forum as opposed to discussion as opposed to topic as 
> opposed to thread, and so forth.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jeff Holt
> Jefftttt@txucom.net
> www.tejas-info-services.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
> 
> But not adequately.
> 
> It is very easy to use a part of the icannatlarge server for 
> such pages, or they can be emailed, or uploadedand ulled by 
> the recipients, many a solution that doesn't any form of 
> secrecy nad if this is the prefered method, then email in 
> private, though it defeats the whole "openess" idea. It means 
> simply that you do not allow people to see anything that is 
> in progress, meaning also that no comments or input can be 
> given before a fait a complait is reached.
> 
> This is a membership first process, in all stages and on all 
> fronts, withholding anything from the membership that is not 
> strictly person-bound (privacy data) is against everything 
> this organization stands for.
> 
> Members have a right to read what the panel does and posts, 
> members have a right to see what the comms are doing. Private 
> lists all to easy become the source for all discussion on 
> that comm and the membership has no way of verifying what is 
> done and how it is done or why it is done.
> 
> I remain opposed to the closed group on the forums.
> 
> Abel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hugh Blair [mailto:hblair@hotfootmail.com]
> > Sent: 12 July 2003 21:29
> > To: abel@able-towers.com
> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Abel Wisman
> > >
> > > I fail to see what needs to be so "private" that matters 
> concerning 
> > > web-comm can not be discussed in public.
> > >
> > > I would like to see an example of that information that the world 
> > > has no need of knowledge of.
> >
> > Here's one example from just today and then this is my last post on 
> > this subject.
> >
> > Today I posted to my personal server some pages and a ZIP that the 
> > webmaster might want to use on the site. It was the best 
> way for him 
> > to see how they looked and get the page code. In NO way do 
> I want that 
> > posting to be public - it's considered a staging site.
> >
> > If that section of the forum was public, I'd be getting 
> hits from who 
> > knows where and who knows how many, and those pages would then be 
> > public before they'd been looked at by the webmaster who may want 
> > changes to them.
> >
> > Asked. Answered.
> >
> > Hugh
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 



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