[Ec-ncuc] Mailing list action items

[Edward Morris]

Bill,

We're in agreement with your final point, let's just get it done. I
actually do not oppose NCUC-poop, as I think it accurately describes a lot
of what we - me included - do on lists and is sort of catchy, creative and
self deprecating. That said...

Let's be clear about who is participating in discussions when we announce a
consensus. You cite EPT (I'm fine with that acronym) discussions yet much
of the recent discussion has been on lists, such as this, not all EPT
members are on. You've talked about community consensus yet we're not
really consulting the community. Now the EC members are the deciders...

If I could get it to the general membership I believe they would support my
position. We can't get anything to the general membership without having a
functioning list. So let's do it, whatever it's called. I only ask that
when the inevitable attack comes for using the list for NCUC policy
discussion,  those who are going along to get along join with me to defend
members rights to use this list for any NCUC matter they wish to discuss.
NCUC-poop, or whatever, is the Discussion list mandated by our Charter.


. And while the current bylaws do mention a discuss list, they also mention
other stuff we don't' have, like a Policy Comm, a Secretary Treasurer, etc.



True.

Which is why upon my return from North America I'll be calling for
adherence to the Charter in it's entirety. I've never been comfortable
ignoring the Charter and in recent days some of our more active members
have chided us for not doing so in justifying their activities at a
superior level. They are correct in doing so.

I support the revamp and revitalization of the Constituency which you have
so aptly led. However, this needs to be done in conjunction with
application of our current governing document. When I ran for office I did
so after reviewing my responsibilities under the Charter and in the belief
that I'd be doing what it called for.  I applaud the Committee structure
you've established, am happy to lead two of the units, but these can not
replace our EC responsibilities under the Charter. Until it is changed, it
needs to be adhered to. I believe that by doing so we will strengthen the
bottom of the bottom up model we all profess to believe in. I regret I
haven't made my preference clear on this issue previously, but like so much
else in this organisation the learning curve is steep.

Good luck getting your work completed in time for class. I'll be thinking
of you as I contemplate which level of SPF I'll need in my suntan lotion to
combat the Arizona sun. Happy Valentines Day to all!


Ed


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Ed
>
> I meant we discussed in the E-Platform Team (EPT?which I am happy to refer
> to simply as the ET going forward if people prefer and don't mind the
> Spielberg). Of which you are a member, and there were people there who
> either preferred members or were indifferent between the two names.  That
> is the community input I refer to.
>
> I don't believe it is accurate to suggest I've doggedly been arguing for
> "discuss" for months and this would be a cosmic reversal of great import.
>  When the point was raised on the "ET" list I said, 22-23 January, I prefer
> the simple standard solution.  Brenden, Joly, and Avri then replied
> indicating there could be confusion and suggested 'member.'  Looking at my
> save messages, you favored discuss, Tapani seemed ok with either, and there
> we left it.  When the need to start moving reoccurred to us the other day,
> we didn't go back and deep read the ET discussion. At least I didn't.  So
> this morning I did, and it just seemed like what's the point or disagreeing
> over the little stuff, follow the path of least resistance that most
> reflects the ET state of play. And while the current bylaws do mention a
> discuss list, they also mention other stuff we don't' have, like a Policy
> Comm, a Secretary Treasurer, etc.
>
> So discuss was my first pref, but members is good enough and seemed to
> please more people.  But if you feel strongly about discuss, then I guess
> we need the other EC members to speak up and express a preference, please.
>  I'll roll with any majority position on this, seriously.  Someone says
> call it ncuc-poop I'll be all in.  Just want us to start implementing
> things?.
>
> BD
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 2:37 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Bill,
>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Interesting. As you've been pushing for 'discuss' since the issue was
> brought up over a month ago, can we assume that you haven't been thinking
> straight for over a month? O is it  that you are not thinking straight
> today?
>
> Of course some say personally I never think straight,  so don't feel bad
> whichever it is. At least with you it appears a temporary condition. :)
>
>
>> 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;
>
>
> As you correctly pointed out yesterday, the historical legacy of the NCUC
> mailing list would indicate the name of 'discuss'. By changing the name we
> are sending the message certain topics aren't to be discussed on the list.
> To allow for organic growth I'd suggest sticking with our legacy,
> 'discuss', which has been your position, rather strongly at times, until
> this morning.
>
> Strange it comes on the morning when I see a very strong post indicating a
> new, more aggressive NCSG PC.
>
>
>
>
>
>> and 2) we should respect the processes we've established for community
>> input.
>
>
>
> We have a process for community input?
>
> I have seen discussions about this matter on a private mailing list back
> when I belonged to it, on this EC list which isn't really an EC list
> because it contains a large number of the people from the private list and
> far more people than on the EC...don't see any discussion amongst the wider
> community because they have no idea that any of these discussions are going
> on.
>
> I guess you are correct, though, that we are using the processes that have
> been established for community input,  which actually neglect the vast
> majority of the community. Not that they would care....most are inactive,
>  perhaps because they aren't regularly asked to be involved.
>
>
>
>
>
>> We have an EPT,
>
>
>
> You'll have to forgive my newbie ignorance. I know of a pregnancy test
> called the EPT, I doubt that's applicable here.  EPT?
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> No.
>
> A brave decision would be to send a post to the general membership using
> the new list 'ncuc-noname', have proponents for each position contribute a
> paragraph each outlining their argument, and letting the members vote. A
> great way to roll out a new concept (a new list) and allow members to
> become engaged. The result really wouldn't matter as much as the process of
> engagement.
>
> Of course, we'd need to wake them up first, something I fear is going to
> take years and a big hammer after so many years of non-engagement. First,
> of course,  I need to find out who to get the hammer rom. I'm fear it's
> been stolen or has a crack in it,  the result of atrophy from lack of use.
>
>
>
>> Sorry for the back and forth, particularly swamped right now and can't
>> see straight.
>>
>
>
> We agree on that point. You've been quite clear on your preference for
> weeks, loudly at times, for 'discuss':  a correct view in my opinion.
>
> Your view does now seem a bit muddled. Your leadership, though, is intact
> and since support of my view has deserted me and followed your new view I
> guess I need to accept reality so we can get the project moving. Of course,
> I would welcome your return to the position you've consistently held for
> just under two months but lacking that...Tapani should do what he needs to
> do.
>
> Once I return from my trip to North America, where my GF is wisely
> insisting on no computer use, I'll be calling for stricter compliance with
> our Charter in all areas. I've actually come to like the document because
> it seems to really embrace bottom up processes and I'm afraid we've gotten
> away from that a bit with our ad hoc structures. They can co-exist.
>
> As such, to comply with section IX.A of the NCUC Charter,  the one the
> current EC was elected under,  I call for creation of Discussion, EC and
> Announce lists. No worries: we can call them whatever we want. See above.
> In reality, people will go where they want regardless of the name.
>
> My concern is that there may now be backtracking on our previous plan to
> reposition our NCUC-EC list to include only EC members. That is far more
> important to me than what we call the Discussion list. I found it very
> difficult to get Amr's appointment to the SCI through the current cluttered
> EC list and I do believe the EC needs to have someplace where we can
> fulfill official duties. The new discuss/member list can incorporate the
> wider community, the EC list the Executive Committee.
>
> I will remind everyone that section IX.A of the NCUC Charter states "The
> EC list is for official communications and deliberations among the
> Executive Committee". I'm happy to defer to the Chair concerning
> utilization of the Announce list but I do respectfully respect that it,
> along with a true EC list,  be established so we are in full compliance
> with the Charter.
>
> Damn. That felt good. I've been repressing the inner lawyer inside me for
> two months. Robin does a better job at acting more human and less lawyer
> than any highly educated attorney  I've ever encountered. I really admire
> that about her. I wish I were so good...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ec-ncuc mailing list
>> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20130214/f7c6083b/attachment-0001.html>