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

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Wed Jul 1 06:53:15 PDT 2009


How about "Observer"?  It has the added benefit of being used in that  
same context in other standards bodies (not all, but some).

Brett McDowell  |  +1.413.652.1248  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org

On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:50 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:

> 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