|FROM ||Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [hangout] [email@example.com: [OrgReps] Re: [ORGCom] Re: Minutes, Means of Communication]
|From owner-hangout-desteny-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Feb 23 22:23:38 2004
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i1O3NcFJ005998
for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:23:38 -0500
Received: (from mdom-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i1O3NcNC005997
for hangout-desteny; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:23:38 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: www2.mrbrklyn.com: mdom set sender to owner-hangout-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com using -f
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id i1O3NcFJ005992
for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:23:38 -0500
Received: (from ruben-at-localhost)
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i1O3Ncpm005991
for hangout-at-nylxs.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:23:38 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:23:38 -0500
From: Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
Subject: [hangout] [lo+df-at-eskimo.com: [OrgReps] Re: [ORGCom] Re: Minutes, Means of Communication]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
List: New Yorker GNU Linux Scene
Admin: To unsubscribe send unsubscribe name-at-domian.com in the body to hangout-request-at-www2.mrbrklyn.com
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:50:12 -0800 (PST)
To: "M. Halegua"
Subject: [OrgReps] Re: [ORGCom] Re: Minutes, Means of Communication
Good to use a bracketed subject beginner, but [OrgCom] would be a disaster
since the names listed should not be sent to the OrgCom list under any
circumstances. If these people are to be contacted publicly it should be
through OrgCom, if privately through the email header field list. I
suggest that the header for this means of communication be [OrgReps] to
distinguish it from [OrgCom] which is the public list. Otherwise it is
inevitable that accidents will happen.
There appears to have been a typo with the email address for Harry
Pottash. it shoud be Giblfiz. Also the email for Michael Dewitt appears
to have gone to a Margaret Dewitt, so there is probably something wrong
with it too. I will continue to correct any other mistakes I may find but
would appreciate it if others would do so as well.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, M. Halegua wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:40:16 -0500
> From: M. Halegua
> To: Lyn of Gnubies
> Subject: [ORGCom] Re: Minutes, Means of Communication
> Thanks for the email. One item: you should use the [OrgCom] bracketed name in
> the subject. I know _I_ use it to filter Orgcom mail to the appropriate
> folder and believe others do the same.
> Mark of DeLUGE
> On Monday 23 February 2004 09:45, you wrote:
> > The names and emails listed above are intended only for the recipients of
> > this email. Do not share them with any other parties or send mail with
> > their information displayed unless you have been given permission or
> > otherwise know that it is all right with them.
> > This is not a new list simply a To field with all of the representatives
> > to OrgCom whose information I was able to sufficiently decipher. I
> > believe there may be others who ave been missed - please let me know of
> > any official representatives whose names are missing and please correct
> > any errors you may see.
> > There are two specific things for which I thought sending mail in this
> > fashion might facilitate.
> > First, we haven't received any minutes from the last meeting and
> > desperately need them. At a bare minimum we need a list of who is on what
> > committee in order for the committees to function. Sunny spparently has
> > very little time at the moment. I hope he is OK. Just in case he doesn't
> > have time to put his notes together in a presentale fashion he could send
> > them here in whatever form they are currently in and we could help put
> > them together for more public consumption. Also, for virtually every
> > organization, the minutes are never made public until approved on by the
> > Board of Directors or some equivalent entity. This 'list' is limited to
> > official representatives of their respective groups to OrgCom and is the
> > closest thing we have to a Board of Directors so that replying to all
> > recipients would be one way to achieve a close approximation to accepted
> > procedure.
> > I gathered the list of attendees for both meetings. At the first meeting
> > people requested that the list be sent to al the members so that is what I
> > did. That was not what was agreed upon at the second meeting, but there
> > are many reasons why I think the full list (from both meetings) shoud be
> > sent to all of the official representatives.
> > First of all, I believe at the time that each person put their name on the
> > list it was their understanding that it would be shared with the other
> > representatives since that was what had been agreed upon at the preceeding
> > meeting and people put their information on the list when the came to the
> > meeting before there was any discussion of the list, so this agreement was
> > the understanding at that time of writing their information.
> > Most of the information on the list is already available via the OrgCom
> > list (with the exception of phone numbers which I have not included here.)
> > Currently we have *no way* to communicate among ourselves in a non-public
> > fashion. Most of us didn't know each other before our January meeting and
> > don't even know how to contact other representatives on an individual
> > basis since the full list has not been in their possession. This is an
> > impossible situation.
> > I gathered the list gave it to one of the two coordinators for the next
> > meeting to copy, but he couldn't get either copy machine to work, so it
> > was decided that I would fax it. It turns out that neither of the
> > coordinators is willing to accept faxes and all of my scanners are all
> > serial or parallel into an unfortunately proprietary format that can't be
> > read in GNU/Linux, etc. (I know, but for professional reasons I have no
> > choice), so I needed a way of getting the information to them and went
> > about trying to decipher all the handwriting. Once that was done, it
> > seemed absurd not to share the information with the rest of the
> > representatives who truly needed it, so I am hereby doing two birds with
> > one stone.
> > I apologize that, due to personal crises I am currently going through it
> > took longer than it normally would to decipher the list.
> > (Since some of us (clearly the minority though) communicate primarily by
> > phone, I suggest that we exchange phone numbers as well - previously there
> > was no way to share phone numbers since the only way we knew of to contact
> > each other was a public list. I did not take the liberty of doing so
> > here, but think it would be a good idea. Also a few of you did not
> > provide any phone number so it would be very helpful if you could do so in
> > this somewhat private fashion. If people are uncomfortable with this
> > and we all use gnupg we could share public keys and fingerprints at the
> > next meeting for such things.)
> > I actually think it may be fortunate that it became necessary to come up
> > with a non-printed list that could be shared and could serve as a 'list'
> > to reply to.
> > At our first Meeting a month ago we voted unanimously to have a list that
> > was only accessible to the OrgCom Representatives. Many of us have been
> > pleading to have it set up ever since. And some of us assumed that the
> > list that was first set up with the name OrgCom (suggesting that it was
> > for the Organizing Committee) and the suggestions that *everyone* list the
> > group they were representing (suggesting that everyone was a
> > representative of some group) was, in fact, the list we were expecting
> > just for the Organizing Committee representatives, since certainly that
> > was the more pressing list - a discussion list could be set up at any
> > time.
> > I didn't feel that I had the authority to set up a new mailing list
> > (although that would have been preferable to going any longer without a
> > representatives list at all -- David Sugar had some good suggestions that
> > I will leave to him to introduce here.) However we needed some way to
> > communicate with each other and needed a means of doing so. Until such a
> > list is set up, let's just use a 'list' on the To:, Bcc: or Lcc: lines to
> > communicate among outselves. Please do not include anyone who is not an
> > official representative - there are many other ways of doing that.
> > I may have a somewhat different perspective on things since my profession
> > is not in the IT industry. I am a Japanese interpreter, a profession
> > which is akin to being a professional fly on the wall in countless
> > corporate settings (flies see everything and can't talk about what
> > they see or hear.) Maybe the world I see is very different. My
> > impression is that the departments that make the decisions as to where
> > they will and will not exhibit, who they will and will not do business
> > with, etc. would be quite shocked by our public discussions so far and
> > would be quite unlikely to want to give money to or trust to organize
> > anything a bunch that sound the way we have so far - and I assure you
> > they all Google to find out about people/groups, etc. before doing
> > business with them. Just as I assumed that the OrgCom or Organizing
> > Committee were those who would do the organizing, they will assume that
> > the discussion to date is a reflection of the kind of organization the
> > will have to look forward to if they deal with us. If this were Org-chat,
> > or some such thing it wouldn't have such a great impact but as it is it is
> > a great liability. We need to be far more professional about this.
> > I have yet to see a successful organization that relies on its formal
> > meetings to get things accomplished. More is generally accomplished over
> > golf, lunch, private email, phone calls, etc.- in more private, not less
> > private settings, since it is more conducive to the kind of
> > spontaneous, creative, frank speaking and hashing things out that is such
> > an essential ingredient to getting things accomplished in the end. We
> > need somewhere to informally hash things out away from the inhibitions and
> > consequences of a public forum -- in addition to the public discussions.
> > It is fine for us to discuss things on a public list as long as we are
> > aware that any potential exhibitor, business sub-conference participant,
> > or other entity we will have to deal with professionally in setting up
> > this conference *will* read it and it will play a role in their decisions.
> > As far as inhibition goes, Free Software related IT folks do not seem to
> > be very inhibited in public, so that is less of a problem. But we also
> > need a location where we will only discuss things seriously. And that too
> > works better out of the public glare.
> > Since all Free Software community related groups have had the opportunity
> > to send representatives and since anything discussed among ourselves can
> > be passed on to each of the groups via their representatives, and pass
> > things through their representatives to the Orgasnizing Committee, even
> > with private conversation noting is realy kept private or secret. It is
> > just conveyed in a more efficient and less disruptive fashion. The
> > representatives can serve as conduits for the community at large. When I
> > was originally setting this up, I gave a tremendous amount of thought as
> > to how to incorporate the whole community without a it resulting in a
> > free-for-all. I thought by having discussions just among a limited number
> > of reps per group would be practical, but always with the reps accountable
> > to their own groups and with other forums for discussion as well. Was I
> > wrong?
> > I honestly believe that the disruptive nature of the public list has in
> > fact stifled the creative and positive efforts that would otherwise have
> > been taking place among us. Notice how the discussions have deteriorated
> > and withered away.
> > Hopefully this new means of communication will help to spark some of the
> > enthusiasm, creativity and productivity that we need. It can't hurt.
> > Sunny, One more plea - please send the minutes or at least list who is on
> > what committee.
> > Lyn of Gnubies
----- End forwarded message -----
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc