[Ec-ncuc] Mailing list action items

[William Drake]

Hello

Yesterday I was a bit of a mess dealing with unexpected and complicated passport/visa/travel planning problems while crashing to finish and post a course syllabus and readings, so I wasn't thinking entirely straight and seek your indulgence in revising and extending my remarks.

Re: the new list, I was thinking top down about such things as why shouldn't it have the same name as before for the purpose of archive integration, following general standards, etc.  It occurs to me over mooring coffee that I should have been thinking bottom up, in two respects: 1) confusingly similar names may confound members as to whether a ncuc-discuss is "competing with" a ncsg-discuss and force us to deal with division of labor questions I'd rather see sorted out organically; and 2) we should respect the processes we've established for community input.  We have an EPT, looking back at the mail this morning there were several people who thought ncuc-members was preferable while most of us were fairly indifferent between that two options.  So why not go with the flow under that circumstance.

So I propose we set up ncuc-members rather than ncuc-discuss.  Yes or no?  24 hours and then Tapani can pull the trigger tomorrow

Sorry for the back and forth, particularly swamped right now and can't see straight.

Bill

On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:44 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 10 10:52, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:
>> 
>>> I prefer Discuss [...] I will roll with whatever the consensus
>>> among elected EC members is.
>> 
>> Looks like we've got three supporting ncuc-discuss, including the
>> chair, with three abstentions. Close enough to consensus for me,
>> but I'll leave that up to you.
> 
> Amidst all the mail flying on different topics in different spaces I've lost track of who has or hasn't replied.  However, I wouldn't consider a non-reply as an abstention (!?).  If that were the standard, abstention would probably be the majority position on most issues in most collaborative spaces I know, and not just within NCUC, NCSG, ICANN, civil society, etc etc.  This would hardly constitute a raving endorsement of anything.
> 
> Instead, I think we have to proceed on the standard assumption that if something's been proposed and people haven't responded after a due or designated period of time, that constitutes consensus.
> 
> So how about this.  It's last call at the bar.  If nobody has disagreed by 24 hours from now, we declare consensus and do something!
> 
>> 
>> Another mailing list action item is moving this list and
>> its archives to ncuc.org domain and renaming it to "ncuc-ec",
>> as per discussion by the e-team
>> (cf. http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/e-team/2013-February/000160.html
>> and associated thread).
>> This would also be a good opportunity to trim the list to include only
>> current EC members.
> 
> These two proposals have also been laying out there for some time now.  So again, I suggest that if nobody has disagreed by 24 hours from now, we declare consensus and act.
> 
> And if someone does disagree, then I guess we have to a) discuss a little more to see if we can find formulations suitable to all, and if that fails b) either do rough consensus or, if people feel sharply divided, vote.  The latter would be rather odd.
> 
> So ok folks, 24 hours.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc