[KI-LC] Group "Join" Form
J. Trent Adams
adams at isoc.org
Wed Jul 1 06:07:45 PDT 2009
Your edits make sense to me.
Do you want to take a whack at a clean version and recirculate?
Roger Martin wrote:
> I've been at an off-site all day and am just now getting to my email.
> See my responses embedded below.
> Roger Martin, Director of Standards
> 22260 Pacific Blvd 41A:A03
> Dulles, VA 20166
> email: roger.martin at corp.aol.com
> AIM: rjmartin99
> phone: 703-265-6203
> mobile: 703-389-1547
> J. Trent Adams wrote:
>> Roger M. -
>> This appears to be a great clarification and streamlining of the process
>> we were trying to define. I definitely appreciate the time and effort
>> you put into carefully preserving the spirit of the prior work, while
>> also improving it.
>> My nits are so minor I feel embarrassed even bringing them up:
>> 1. The term "Intellectual Property Rights" is
>> introduced earlier than the acronym was
>> parenthetically defined. Perhaps moving up the
>> acronym to the first instance?
> [RM] oops!! yes, it should be moved up to the first usage
>> 2. The term "Follower" is now only referenced in
>> the second bullet of Section (6). Perhaps it makes
>> sense to eliminate the term from the Definitions
>> Section (2) and insert the meaning in (6)?
> [RM] Good point. I considered this, but decided it was useful to
> have the definition. In addition, we should change the fourth bullet
> in (5) to read:
> * A non-Participant in a Group may subscribe to a Group List as a
> Follower. A non-Participant Subscriber has read-only permission
> and may not post to the List.
>> 3. If we're leveraging defined terms (e.g. Member,
>> Participant, etc.) from other Controlling
>> Documents, do we need to formally reference
>> them in some way? Perhaps by including them
>> in the Definitions Section (2), linking a reference
>> to the Bylaws and/or Operating Procedures as
> [RM] In the Operating Procedures we defined only those needed terms
> that had not been defined in the Bylaws. So, I think we should
> continue that practice. The reason for doing it that way is to
> prevent future conflicts should we change a definition in one document
> and forget to change it in another. In the Bylaws we included the
> following as the introduction to the Definitions in Section 1:
> /Whenever a term defined below is capitalized, it is used as
> defined. If the word or /
> /phrase does not have leading capital letters, then it is to be
> interpreted within the /
> /context of the specific text. /
> /A capitalized term not defined below is used as defined in the
> Organization Bylaws./
> [RM] For clarity, we should add the above text to each Policy that we
> create that includes definitions.
>> 4. In the same vein, if we're referencing externally-
>> defined terms, do we need to include the term
>> "Participant of a Group" in this document? This
>> seems close enough to "Participant" as defined
>> in 1.13 of the Bylaws that perhaps we can remove
>> the qualifying "of a Group" so they're equivalent?
>> Or is there a subtle difference I'm missing?
> [RM] Good point. Let's delete the definition for "Participant of a
> [RM] However, I think we should leave the usage in the rest of the
> document because the policy with respect to a Group list pertains to a
> Participant of that specific Group. Otherwise, if we just say
> "Participant", then an entity that is a Participant of Group A might
> think it has the right to have posting permission for the Group B List
> without having signed the Participation Agreement for Group B.
>> Let me know what you suggest.
>> Thanks again,
>> Roger Martin wrote:
>>> I have spent some time reviewing the "Groups Email Discussion List
>>> Policy" draft and have rewritten it in what I believe to be an easier
>>> to understand and more comprehensive format.
>>> I have attached my draft which is based on the following comments and
>>> 1. The Policy needs to address both (1) Joining a Group as a
>>> Participant and (2) Subscribing to a List as a Follower. In the
>>> current draft these two concepts were intertwined and seemed to
>>> be fairly confusing. I have attempted to split these two
>>> concepts out into separate sections to the extent possible.
>>> 2. The introduction of the term "Contributor" is not needed since
>>> "Participant", which is already defined in the Bylaws, is
>>> sufficient. I have deleted usage of "Contributor". If we wish
>>> to differentiate between Participants who do and do not actually
>>> contribute postings to the Group List, then the term may be
>>> useful, but personally I do not believe we should be encouraging
>>> the concept of being a "passive" participant in a Group by not
>>> contributing anything.
>>> 3. I propose that all Participants in a Group be automatically
>>> Subscribed to the Group List. If a Member has additional
>>> representatives who join a Group then they may need to
>>> Subscribe, but in my opinion the roster of Participants in a
>>> Group should automatically be included on the Group List.
>>> Likewise for the BoT and LC lists, those holding a seat on
>>> either body should be automatically subscribed to both Lists.
>>> I have made other changes to the text as I rearranged it, but I did
>>> not intentionally change the meaning of the existing text except as
>>> outlined above.
>>> I apologize that I do not have the document properly formatted, but I
>>> have run out of time and will be in an offsite meeting all day
>>> tomorrow. As noted in an earlier email, I do not have edit permission
>>> on the online version of the document. I am including it as a PDF and
>>> MSWORD file.
>>> I am sending it in its current state for consideration and discussion
>>> as appropriate.
>>> Roger Martin wrote:
>>>> Since I do not have "edit" privileges to the "Groups Email Discussion
>>>> List Policy" and because I feel that these issues should be discussed
>>>> by the entire list, I was going to posting my recommended changes
>>>> (and rationale) to the LC and BoT lists in an email.
>>>> However, after spending some time on rewriting the policy, I have
>>>> decided to draft a new version.
>>>> One of the primary difficulties is that while the title of this draft
>>>> policy is "Groups Email Discussion List Policy", it actually also
>>>> includes, and to some degree confuses, the policy about joining a WG
>>>> or DG.
>>>> As a result, I am going to propose restructuring it and renaming it
>>>> to be "Policy for Joining Groups and Group Mailing Lists".
>>>> I will post it for consideration as soon as I have completed the
>>>> redrafting of the document.
>>>> Roger Martin, Director of Standards
>>>> 22260 Pacific Blvd 41A:A03
>>>> Dulles, VA 20166
>>>> email: roger.martin at corp.aol.com
>>>> AIM: rjmartin99
>>>> phone: 703-265-6203
>>>> mobile: 703-389-1547
>>> LC mailing list
>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
J. Trent Adams
Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
e) adams at isoc.org
More information about the LC