[discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or more) lists?
nashton at ccianet.org
Tue Jan 21 09:32:46 UTC 2014
FWIW, I have given up. I read only emails from /1net from a handful of
people and only when the subject seems relevant, which at this point is
rare. I'm glad that so many people find it of interest to post so much ;)
Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA)
Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45
Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430
email: nashton at ccianet.org
Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and
date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton
On 21 January 2014 10:28, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>wrote:
> Perhaps we could break the discussion into two threads. Discuss and
> Discuss Brazil. One being more general and long-term, one more specific to
> Brazil, with the possibility of limited cross-posting to cover real overlap?
> On 1/20/2014 6:49 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>> +1 Peter
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Peter H. Hellmonds" <
>>> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote:
>>> thank you for your suggestion as obvious we have a lot of traffic on
>>> this list. It reminds me of good old Usent newsgroups during heated
>>> However, IMHO this idea of splitting the list may not be such a good
>>> idea after all.
>>> We could end up dividing discussions between representation and
>>> technical issues, which may be intended by the way you describe the
>>> setup. But this could also mean that one group decides to not get
>>> involved to even see the arguments presented in the other sub-list.
>>> However, I do see benefit for all to listen to both groups of arguments.
>>> And if some topic would be relevant to both sub-lists, we might end up
>>> with twice the mails if people on both sub-lists would decide to
>>> cross-post, as has happened with other external lists.
>>> Keeping the amount of traffic as high as it is right now might
>>> discourage some from following the discussions on this list, but Avri
>>> has pointed out a possible solution, i.e. that one could simply use a
>>> filter to throw certain messages into a bit-bucket (e.g. folder:
>>> discuss-read-later) based on some keywords.
>>> May I further suggest that we all do *not* simply hit the "Reply to all
>>> plus list" button without consideration, but make sure to put in a
>>> marker into the beginning of the subject line that reflects the topic
>>> area, e.g. "MS REP: how to chose reps from various multi-stakeholder
>>> groups" and "IG TECH: IPv6 and privacy considerations". If we would have
>>> some discipline and guidance from a list care-taker (to avoid the term
>>> moderator), we might get along just fine. (ok, agreed, that is a big
>>> *IF* :-) )
>>> Just my 2 cents. (I'll happily go along if the majority decides to
>>> -- Peter
>>> On 19/01/2014 16:07, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>>> So I propose considering
>>>> to split this list into two lists:
>>>> *_1net-representation_* will be devoted to issues of representation that
>>>> concern us. It should be oriented toward the makeup of 1net and other
>>>> groups that claim to focus on Internet governance issues.
>>>> *_1-net solutions_* will be devoted to the issues in Internet governance
>>>> that concern us. It should be oriented to problem statements,
>>>> descriptions of possible solutions, technical assessments, and
>>>> implications of proposed modifications in the structure and distribution
>>>> of responsibilities within the Internet administrative and technical
>>> Peter H. Hellmonds
>>> <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
>>> OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
>>> protection is active.
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss