Sounds all good...
So let's start:
Can someone open up a website with www.tikiwiki.org on it?
I would do it but I'm in the wrong part of this world for bandwidth....
Cheers
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:52, S Woodside wrote:
On Wednesday, December 10, 2003, at 10:32 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
But let's face it:
They cannot operate a mailing list
<etc/>
So how do we move from that to ISOC driving the Internet Governance
part?
ISDF is somehow a loose collection of people that never stop to argue
and do not produce much as a collective. IETF is nearly the same,
except individuals came make contribution that will get peer
reviewed... and they are motivated to do that...
So does ISOC needs to add a staff on its payroll who will be dedicated
in reviewing governance documents and issues and publish RFCg (RFC on
governance)? Like ISOC is paying for the IETF RFC writing
Secretariat...
My quick answer is YES, and they must do it fast, real fast...
Hint: They can use some of the .org money for that...
Cheers
Franck, why don't we make like an open source project and do it
ourselves? We talked before about a process to generate documents. I
think coming out of that discussion, I think there is clearly a
situation where a substantial body of work could be built up by people
on this list under the title of ISDF documents.
And I think that's a good thing. Don't we all write about internet
societal / policy issues anyway? This would be a good way to build up
a body of work that has more overall weight to it. Since ISOC
obviously isn't going to do it for us (they can't even run a mailing
list ...) why don't we just do it ourselves? Any kind of basic website
infrastructure we can just set up somewhere for temporary purposes
until we convince ISOC to adopt it officially.
I propose the following straw man for how to set this up, feel free to
kick it.
1) Anyone can submit a draft to the Drafts archive
2) The draft author needs to get two Reviews and one SuperReview to
move the document to the Documents archive
We then establish two panels, a panel of Reviewers and a panel of
SuperReviewers. Reviewers can have a very wide membership. I would
suggest that anyone can have Reviewer status with the simple support
of any other Reviewer or SuperReviewer. SuperReviewers will have a
limited membership. It might not be a fixed number but I'm thinking
about a dozen people at most. Potentially SuperReviewers would have an
area of expertise that they usually handle.
Reviewers are expected to do a basic vet on the document. It's
well-written, communicates the point clearly, and meets some
reasonable standard for accuracy.
SuperReviewers delegate most of their work to the Reviewers. They do a
sanity check and make whatever kind of interventions seem appropriate.
Any SuperReviewer willing to grant a super-review can allow the draft
into the document archive.
We would seed the SuperReviewers list with people who have been active
on ISDF and *want* the job. I nominate myself :-) Reviewers we can be
permissive and allow anyone for some getting-started period :-)
The overall structure would be permissive. I can see that conflicting
documents might be in the same archive :-) But that's OK ... the point
is more to build up an archive of reviewed works than to try to
achieve some kind of unachievable consensus.
If we get this working, we could add another layer where we actually
try to achieve consensus and nominate specific documents into RFCg
status :)
Do people like this idea?
simon
--
99% Devil, 1% Angel
homepage http://www.simonwoodside.com
for the developing world http://www.openict.net
member of http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino
----
Franck Martin
franck(_at_)sopac(_dot_)org
SOPAC, Fiji
GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9 D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9 1320
"Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard