[governance] communicating with our peers

Sun Feb 10 15:21:24 EST 2008

Linda suggested –

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?

Personally, I don’t think that matters. Given a choice of two places to
write to the same group of stakeholders, and knowing that in the second
place the public ire is less likely to be raised on a contentious matter,
most of us will choose the more private list. Nothing wrong with that, it’s
just the way things are for almost all of us.

Adam responded

Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the closed
list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about this on the open
list. All would then know there was a discussion going on, and at some point
it would be summarized back (in some form).  If the closed list were used to
excess then it should be obvious.

In my opinion the good thing that has happened is that a degree of
commitment to openness has been adopted by the MAG. That’s the good news,
and maintaining the commitment to that is what’s important. I don’t think
any particular procedure will remove the need for members committed to
openness (like Adam) to continue to ensure that summaries are posted from
time to time. We have a good step forward with the latest offerings!

On 2/9/08, Ian Peter <HYPERLINK
"mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com"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
HYPERLINK "http://www.ianpeter.com"www.ianpeter.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.internetmark2.org"www.internetmark2.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.nethistory.info"www.nethistory.info

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:HYPERLINK
"mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au"Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
Sent: 10 February 2008 12:41
To: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"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:
    HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    HYPERLINK
"mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org"governance-unsubscribe at lists.c
psr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    HYPERLINK
"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/inf
o/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:
    HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org"governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    HYPERLINK
"mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org"governance-unsubscribe at lists.c
psr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    HYPERLINK
"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/inf
o/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: 269.20.2/1270 - Release Date: 10/02/2008
12:21

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080211/cd03c680/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