[governance] Trying to "fix" the list Explanation and apology

[Ian Peter]

Good to see the range of views being put forward, and some open discussion
on this, so Ginger it wasn¹t so bad a mistake to make after all!

This list periodically has disruptive influences (who was the person who
during WSIS preparations kept posting long diatribes on the inner workings
of UNIX?) Others I could name meant well but were just highly unusual to the
point where they input could be considered disruptive.

We seem to have quite different opinions here on the option of a closed list
­ some strongly for, some strongly against. I have a personal preference for
an open list, but I do have a higher tolerance for noise on lists than some.
Perhaps if English wasn¹t my first language I would feel different however.

But if there is a strong feeling either way I here I am happy to go with the
general direction!

Ian




On 13/08/09 1:26 AM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> First an explanation and apology. My last email post was meant for Ian Peter
> (offlist) as a discussion between co-coordinators, not for the list.
> Unfortunately, I am multi-tasking from an excellent  IGF preparatory meeting
> in Rio, and this error was a result.
> 
> From a viewpoint of transparency, it is not terrible--I would not however,
> treat this subject in this manner on the list, as I did permit myself more
> latitude in a private email. I have already apologized to Alejandro Pisanty
> for making public a private conversation.
> 
> I am glad to see nonetheless that responses have been productive and coherent.
> Perhaps we can make positive use of this error to find alternatives to improve
> the efficiency of the list. I do emphasize that the objective is not
> censorship, but working together to make the list work better, and in
> particular, to stop people from unsubscribing due to distracting posts.
> 
> My personal opinion is still that the most obvious solution is the use of
> filters and message rules in our email applications to control unwanted
> emails. However, the number of sign-offs, and the distraction from substantial
> discussion concerns me. Let us please discuss Avri's suggestion and any others
> that come up. Please opine.
> 
> Thanks. Best,
> Ginger
> 
> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>>  
>> I agree with Avri's suggestion  - working group lists can take a lot of the
>> back and forth traffic off the main list and allow for more focused
>> discussion on getting something done.  But that won't do anything about
>> troll activity, though... and I'd be against giving up the list's openness
>> and transparency and democracy just to get rid of some people that others
>> find annoying - our main principles need to be upheld, despite any troll
>> issues.
>> 
>> Jacqueline A. Morris
>> jam at jacquelinemorris.com
>> http://www.jacquelinemorris.com
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/jacqueline.morris.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:17 AM
>> To: Governance/IGC List
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Trying to "fix" the list
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> It would be a fundamental change to the openness of the list.
>> Especially given the number of well respected people who are
>> participants on the list and not 'members'.
>> 
>> I would not be in favor because it is a movement away from
>> transparency (not matter what i feel about being personally baited
>> from time to time) and because it would end a very important kind of
>> outreach this list has - one can sign up, be here, participate and
>> then decide to join when it came time to vote on something (or sooner
>> if wished).
>> 
>> If anything i would recommend, and support, the creation of smaller
>> side lists that were topical and project oriented (i.e. to write a
>> statement on x), closed for posting to IGC members and invited others,
>> but with open archives.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 12 Aug 2009, at 10:07, Ginger Paque wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>  
>>>  
>>> Is it possible for us to propose and implement a trial procedure to
>>> later be voted upon and approved by the list?
>>> 
>>> Can we ask cpsr to open another list for the IGC, called "related
>>> topics". This would be an open list. We would change the governance
>>> list from an open list to a moderated membership, where new members
>>> would have to be approved by the coordinators upon signing up.
>>> 
>>> Coordinators could transfer any thread to the related topic list if
>>> it is not directly related to IG process substance. This would be
>>> one of the duties of the coordinators, and would not require
>>> approval, vote or consensus.
>>> 
>>> After 60 days or so, we could vote on the procedure and add it to
>>> the charter.
>>> 
>>> Is this practical, appropriate, legal?
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> I ran into Alejandro Pissanty (sp?) yesterday and he thinks we
>>> should take pre-emptive action and remove three people. I do not
>>> think that is a proper procedure, although I have to admit, I would
>>> be willing to do it, and then resign for improper conduct, if I
>>> thought the ICG would be able to make it stick :o)
>>> 
>>> gp
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>     
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> 
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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/20090813/d45b6299/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