Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying to discuss ten things at 
once is an obvious distraction. it would still be done mailing list style 
even though that is totally outdated and not user-friendly for most users.

Forums would still be a better option and more people are familiar with 
forums and how to use them and they find it easier because it is separated 
into different threads.

The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a few people who can follow 
it.

However, since it seems no one involved in Internet governance can seem to 
grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a mailing list and will 
always have limited participation, which I believe is the real goal of 
proponents of this method of communication.

Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG until it achieves it's goal 
is necessary in my opnion.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> Joop and all,
>
> What distractions, and distractions from what exactly are you
> referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
>
> [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is also what Dr. Dierker had
> already suggested.
>
> CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if whom is being CC'ed is
> a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for informational purposes
> and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing is overly redundant.
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> >    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch wrote:
> > >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to address. Whenever a WG is formed
> > but
> > >still posts to the list, even with the subject line changed, people
> > not
> > >involved in the WG continue to comment. I understand the need for
> > >transparency and agree with anything that makes things more
> > transparent.
> > >However, I run a nonprofit org and whenever a committee is formed to
> > >discuss a particular topic, they do it among themselves and take
> > minutes
> > >so others can read what went on in those discussions. Then the
> > committee
> > >reports their findings back to the board. it's efficient.
> > >
> > >I think a WG should have their own mailing list and archives that
> > anyone
> > >can read. If you really want to get something done, then a WG has to
> > be
> > >formed and allowed to get their work done, then report their findings
> > back
> > >to the list. That's my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> > I agree with Chris. We can report weekly or fortnightly to the list,
> > but in
> > order to get work done, we need to be free from distractions and
> > possible
> > trolling.
> > As long as we have to operate by cc-ing, I would like to ask WG
> > participants to put [RAA] in the subject line.
> >
> >
> > -joop-
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>   Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827