[KI-LC] [SPAM] Re: [BoT] Group "Join" Form

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Wed Jul 1 06:50:57 PDT 2009


Brett -

I'm comfortable with "follower", but am open to other terms that convey
the same sense of someone "passively keeping up with the work, but not
interested in contributing."

I'd considered "voyeur", but didn't think that was the best idea.

- Trent


Brett McDowell wrote:
> Is everyone happy with the word "Follower"?
>
> Brett McDowell  |  +1.413.652.1248  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org
>
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:07 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>
>> Roger -
>>
>> Your edits make sense to me.
>>
>> Do you want to take a whack at a clean version and recirculate?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Trent
>>
>>
>> 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
>> =jtrentadams
>>
>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>> Internet Society
>> http://www.isoc.org
>>
>> e) adams at isoc.org
>> o) 703-439-2149
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Trustees mailing list
>> Trustees at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
>>
>

-- 
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org

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





More information about the LC mailing list