<div>Dear Ian and All,</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>A question about numbers and kinds of online lists, or that matter groups in general.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are comments (more or less or at a slant) about conversation-drift over to the smaller and often more-directly decisional (operational term here) body.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So distributed approaches can (my paraphrase, so correct if you wish) to become centralized after all and there can be a morale dip in the orphaned group.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Does it help - do you think - if all those in the more admin and decisional body are also in the more general list, sometimes called a member list?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Continuing best wishes, LDMF.</div>
<div>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff</div>
<div>*Respectful Interfaces*.</div><br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/9/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ian Peter</b> <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one closed<br>list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the<br>
closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two<br>lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around<br>issues where the closed list has been utilized.<br><br>Might as well just have one list. I don't mind the Chatham House<br>
anonymisation process, but I also think that many people might view<br>transparency as meaning that MAG members individual points of view and<br>comments on issues under discussion should be known as a default position,<br>
with Chatham House only being applied where there is a compelling reason to<br>do so..<br><br><br>Ian Peter<br>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd<br>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000<br>Australia<br>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773<br>
<a href="http://www.ianpeter.com">www.ianpeter.com</a><br><a href="http://www.internetmark2.org">www.internetmark2.org</a><br><a href="http://www.nethistory.info">www.nethistory.info</a><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:<a href="mailto:Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au">Jeremy@Malcolm.id.au</a>]<br>Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41<br>To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Adam Peake<br>Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers<br>
<br>On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote:<br><br>>> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would<br>>> be good to hear. What should it be,<br>><br>> 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it<br>
> follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed?<br>><br>> 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and<br>> be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive<br>> issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when<br>
> discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion<br>> summarized if appropriate.)<br><br>I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an<br>alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO.<br>
Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on<br>the Secretariat.<br><br>--<br>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com<br>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor<br>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'<br>
<br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008<br>11:54<br><br><br>No virus found in this outgoing message.<br>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 09/02/2008<br>11:54<br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>