[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