[KI-LC] Group "Join" Form

[Roger Martin]

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
>>   
>>     
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc_kantarainitiative.org/attachments/20090630/b31304ce/attachment.html>