[governance] communicating with our peers

[linda misek-falkoff]

Dear Ian and All,

A question about numbers and kinds of online lists, or that matter groups in
general.

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.

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.

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?

Continuing best wishes, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*.



On 2/9/08, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>
> My experience with organizations which have adopted the one open, one
> closed
> list approach is that the majority of discussion just moves over to the
> closed list over time, whether it is sensitive or not. If there are two
> lists, there still has to be a mechanism to achieve transparency around
> issues where the closed list has been utilized.
>
> Might as well just have one list. I don't mind the Chatham House
> anonymisation process, but I also think that many people might view
> transparency as meaning that MAG members individual points of view and
> comments on issues under discussion should be known as a default position,
> with Chatham House only being applied where there is a compelling reason
> to
> do so..
>
>
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers
>
> On 10/02/2008, at 12:14 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> >> Anyway, that's my opinion. If the caucus has a position, it would
> >> be good to hear. What should it be,
> >
> > 1. One open MAG mailing, anyone can read the archive. Should it
> > follow chatham house rule and be anonomyzed?
> >
> > 2. Two MAG lists, one open (should it follow chatham house rule and
> > be anonomyzed?), and a closed list for discussion of sensitive
> > issues (suggest it should be noted on the archived list when
> > discussion is taking place on private, and that discussion
> > summarized if appropriate.)
>
> I think option 2 would be acceptable, but the existence of an
> alternative closed list obviates the need for the anonymisation IMHO.
> Apart from which as Marcus pointed out this would reduce the load on
> the Secretariat.
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date:
> 09/02/2008
> 11:54
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date:
> 09/02/2008
> 11:54
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080210/fd338261/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance