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

Roger Martin roger.martin at corp.aol.com
Wed Jul 1 07:05:08 PDT 2009


I'm making the changes to the draft based on Trent's suggestions (and my 
responses) and will post it shortly.

   ....rogerM

p.s.  Somewhere along the line I inadvertently changed this discussion 
from the "For Review: Email Discussion Policy" thread to the "Group 
"Join" Form" thread.  I will post the new draft notice as a new thread: 
"Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists".


Cahill, Conor P wrote:
> "Lurker" seems reasonable to me :-)..
>
> Conor
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:trustees-
>> bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of J. Trent Adams
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:51 AM
>> To: Brett McDowell
>> Cc: Leadership Council; Roger.Martin at corp.aol.com; Kantara BoT
>> Subject: Re: [BoT] [SPAM] Re: [KI-LC] Group "Join" Form
>>
>> 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_kantarainitiativ
>> e.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_kantarainitiativ
>> e.org
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc_kantarainitiative.org/attachments/20090701/342196f1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the LC mailing list