At 1/13/99, 03:25 AM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >It may be relevant to talk about the bwg-n-friends list. This >evolved out of private correspondence that started before the IFWP >steering committee collapsed. Some time after the Boston meeting >there were enough people involved that the CC list became unwieldy, >so someone proposed setting up bwg-n-friends. > >What no one mentioned was the setting up of a second, secret list, >bwg-core. After a while it became apparent that all of the real >decisions were being made on the secret list; the rest of us were >just there to make proposals. That is, we were back in the old >familiar "request for public comments / decisions behind closed doors >by the inner circle" loop. > >So when Karl talks about secrecy and pretence you can be sure that >he knows whereof he speaks. > >This whole process, on all sides, needs the light of day. Hi Jim, While light is good, I think we have a bigger issue here -- what exactly is an open process? How do we structure one so that everyone can participate fairly, while actually allowing work to get done? Somewhere along the line, we've come to expect that an open process precludes private meetings and communications. I disagree with that sentiment. Personally, I believe that there is no preventing private discussions. In fact, every time I pick up the phone, I have one. And it seems like at least once a day, I have a conference call with three or more people. Am I violating some kind of open process? The same argument applies to email. Is exchanging email with a single person allowed in an open process? What about three people? Five? What about a small mailing list of five? Ten? Twenty? Where do you draw the line? IMHO, it is ok for private meetings and communications to occur, as long as the *decision* making process is fair and open to all. The real question is "how do we structure such a process?" I suggest that we need a new paradigm for working together using mailing lists in cyberspace. Here is one idea I forwarded to the ICANN MAC, one that reflects the reality of list use today: At 12/28/98, 01:04 AM, Jay Fenello wrote: >> >>In debating the membership structure, what do you think about having a public >>comment listserv which is moderated to avoid excessive individual posts? >> >>Should there be list rules and if so, what would they be? So far, we've only >>discussed a per-day limit on the number of posts from any single individual >>and a prohibition on cross-posting. > >This question is one that has plagued us many times over >the last many months. I am slowly coming to the opinion >that we need a new construct for public comments that allow >*both* open and closed lists to coexist. > >So, rather than a moderated list approach, I suggest a >construct that features lists within lists. For example: > - Decisions Maker's List (10 members) > - Advisor's List (30 members) > - Open List (100s of members) > >Each list would only accept postings from its members, but >postings to each list would be propagated to the list immediately >below it (or all lists below it). This ensures an open process, it >gives everyone a chance to comment, and it allows work to get done. This is basically a list within a list approach: +----------------------------+ | +------------------------+ | | | +--------------------+ | | | | | Decision Maker's | | | | | | List | | | | | +--------------------+ | | | | Advisor's List | | | +------------------------+ | | Open List | +----------------------------+ It allows everyone to participate, it allows the discussions on the smaller lists to be viewed and commented on by the larger lists, and it allows the best ideas to "filter" up to the decision maker's. In actuality, it is an attempt to formalize the informal process that occurs today, while adding a dimension of openness that is currently not available. Bottom line, solving this problem is part of the process of creating a new tradition of self governance. Comments and suggestions welcome. Respectfully, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
