[KI-LC] Group "Join" Form

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Wed Jul 1 06:07:45 PDT 2009

Roger -

Your edits make sense to me.

Do you want to take a whack at a clean version and recirculate?

Thanks again,

Roger Martin wrote:
> Trent,
> I've been at an off-site all day and am just now getting to my email. 
> See my responses embedded below.
>    rogerM
> /******************************************
> Roger Martin, Director of Standards
>      AOL
>      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
>>      appropriate?
> [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
> Group". 
> [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,
>> Trent
>> 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
>>> rationale:
>>>    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.
>>>     ...rogerM
>>> 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.
>>>>     ....rogerM
>>>> /--
>>>> ******************************************
>>>> Roger Martin, Director of Standards
>>>>      AOL
>>>>      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
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

J. Trent Adams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society

e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149

More information about the LC mailing list