[KI-LC] Revised DRAFT: Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Roger Martin

unread,
Jul 1, 2009, 11:30:10 AM7/1/09
to Kantara BoT, Leadership Council
I have attached the revised draft of the "Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists" based on the discussions of the past two days.  I still don't have edit permission on the wiki page, but will post the new draft there when I do.

Additional Discussion:

1.  Joni posted a proposal to one officer from each WG and DG a a moderator of any Lists associated with that WG or DG.  It's not clear from the email discussion what the resolution of this proposal is.  As a result I did not make any changes to the text.  If we need to make that change, would someone please post the specific text changes to be made?

2.  Are there any further edits needed before we move to adopt this as a Kantara Initiative policy?

   ...rogerM


--
******************************************
Roger Martin, Director of Standards
     AOL
     22260 Pacific Blvd    41A:A03
     Dulles, VA 20166
email: roger....@corp.aol.com
         AIM:       rjmartin99
         phone:  703-265-6203
         mobile: 703-389-1547
*******************************************

Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists-rjm2.pdf

Joni Brennan

unread,
Jul 1, 2009, 3:30:03 PM7/1/09
to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
Hi Roger,

I have drafted the suggested addition below:

Section 5
* All Lists are administered and moderated by the Staff.  In addition to the Staff moderator, each list will be moderated by the Secretary officer responsible for that list's associated group.  The Secretary moderator function provides an additional layer of operational information to the officers of each group.

Please feel free to word smith my suggestion as you may see fit.  Also, as an FYI to the group, we did find the bug causing Rogers edit access woes and have resolved the issue.

Cheers,

Joni

_______________________________________________
Trustees mailing list
Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org




--
Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Liberty Alliance Project
Director of Operations
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ projectliberty.org
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org




Roger Martin

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 12:25:59 PM7/2/09
to Joni Brennan, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
Joni,

I had a conversation with Brett about this issue because I was not understanding the motivations for proposing this change. 

Based on that discussion, I understand the motivation for this change to be that: 
  • Staff will administer all Lists, but there is a valid concern that a requirement to have Staff moderate all Lists will be a significant burden on Staff resources.

  • We can configure each List so any email received from a non-Participant gets an auto-reply that says "You do not have permission to post to this List.  To do so, you must sign the Participation Agreement for this Group." (or something similar)

  • It may be helpful for the leadership of a Group to know (1) who joins and who leaves a list as an Observer, and (2) who attempts to post as an Observer.  As a result, you proposed that a member of the Group Leadership (Group secretary) be assigned moderator status in order to be able to track this.
Under the Kantara Initiative Bylaws, a Group is not required to have a secretary.  However, the Bylaws do state that when "a WG does not have a secretary it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that those duties." 

Given the above, I believe the following changes will be sufficient to achieve what you are proposing:
  1. Reword the first bullet in Section (5) to read:
    * All Lists are administered by Staff and moderated by the secretary of the Group to which the List is associated.

  2. Delete the sixth bullet in section (5)
    * Group Lists are not moderated.
   ...rogerM

J. Trent Adams

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 12:36:01 PM7/2/09
to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
Roger -

In order to avoid any misunderstandings, would it make sense to define
"Moderate" and "Administer"?

- Trent


Roger Martin wrote:
> Joni,
>
> I had a conversation with Brett about this issue because I was not
> understanding the motivations for proposing this change.
>
> Based on that discussion, I understand the motivation for this change
> to be that:
>

> * Staff will administer all Lists, but there is a valid concern


> that a requirement to have Staff moderate all Lists will be a
> significant burden on Staff resources.
>

> * We can configure each List so any email received from a


> non-Participant gets an auto-reply that says "You do not have
> permission to post to this List. To do so, you must sign the
> Participation Agreement for this Group." (or something similar)
>

> * It may be helpful for the leadership of a Group to know (1) who


> joins and who leaves a list as an Observer, and (2) who attempts
> to post as an Observer. As a result, you proposed that a member
> of the Group Leadership (Group secretary) be assigned moderator
> status in order to be able to track this.
>
> Under the Kantara Initiative Bylaws, a Group is not required to have a
> secretary. However, the Bylaws do state that when "a WG does not have
> a secretary it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that those
> duties."
>
> Given the above, I believe the following changes will be sufficient to
> achieve what you are proposing:
>

> 1. Reword the first bullet in Section (5) to read:


> * All Lists are administered by Staff and moderated by the
> secretary of the Group to which the List is associated.
>

> 2. Delete the sixth bullet in section (5)

>> /--


>> ******************************************
>> Roger Martin, Director of Standards
>> AOL
>> 22260 Pacific Blvd 41A:A03
>> Dulles, VA 20166

>> email: roger....@corp.aol.com <mailto:roger....@corp.aol.com>


>> AIM: rjmartin99
>> phone: 703-265-6203
>> mobile: 703-389-1547

>> *******************************************/


>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Trustees mailing list
>> Trus...@kantarainitiative.org

>> <mailto:Trus...@kantarainitiative.org>


>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Joni Brennan
>> IEEE-ISTO
>> Liberty Alliance Project
>> Director of Operations
>> voice:+1 732-226-4223

>> email: joni @ projectliberty.org <http://projectliberty.org>
>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org <http://ieee-isto.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> L...@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) ad...@isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

Roger Martin

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 1:29:34 PM7/2/09
to J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
I'm out of my field when it comes to mail list administration and standard terminology

Would anyone on this thread care to enlighten me (us).

Do we need to define those terms?


    ....roger M

Brett McDowell

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 1:45:14 PM7/2/09
to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
Here is what the MailMan software documentation says in this regard:

There are two ownership roles associated with each mailing list. The list administrators are the people who have ultimate control over all parameters of this mailing list. They are able to change any list configuration variable available through these administration web pages.

The list moderators have more limited permissions; they are not able to change any list configuration variable, but they are allowed to tend to pending administration requests, including approving or rejecting held subscription requests, and disposing of held postings. Of course, the list administrators can also tend to pending requests.


Brett McDowell | +1.413.652.1248 | http://info.brettmcdowell.com



Joni Brennan

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 1:57:44 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com, Kantara BoT
Thanks Brett.

I believe it would benefit us to develop operational policies (similar to what the LC has done) to explain the implications and responsibilities associated with the WG/DG Roles.  This policy would answer questions like - When can I 'accept' a rejected message'? 

Also, as there is no DG Secretary role this item would fall under the DG Vice-chair or Chair responsibilties.

Finally, we should consider putting a requested change in the LC queue to update the Operating Procedures to reflect this item under the appropriate role duties.

Cheers,

Joni
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org




Brett McDowell

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:13:51 PM7/2/09
to Joni Brennan, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com, Kantara BoT
Given all the issues I've noticed being raised in the development of this policy, it's probably best to simply not allow any posting to the lists from non-participants in the group.  

How do folks feel about tightening this up to that level?

Joni Brennan

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:15:50 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com, Kantara BoT
+1

John Fraser

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:36:25 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Joni Brennan, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com, Kantara BoT

+1

 

John Fraser

MEDNETWorld.com

Bob Pinheiro

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:37:30 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT, Roger....@corp.aol.com
+1 I thought that was the policy all along....that only the
participants in each group could post to that group's list.

Brett McDowell wrote:
> Given all the issues I've noticed being raised in the development of
> this policy, it's probably best to simply not allow any posting to the
> lists from non-participants in the group.
>
> How do folks feel about tightening this up to that level?
>
> Brett McDowell | +1.413.652.1248 | http://info.brettmcdowell.com
>
>
>

Iain Henderson

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:42:18 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Kantara BoT, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com
+1

Iain Henderson
iain.he...@mydex.org

This email and any attachment contains information which is private
and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are
not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-
mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.

Lucy Lynch

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:52:24 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT, Roger....@corp.aol.com
+1 ,

with this caveat, list administrators can and should forward
on the the list any announcements that would be on interest.
This should clearly be a forward (over the admin's email address)
and not an approved posting over the original address.

Lucy Lynch
Director, Trust and Identity Initiatives
Internet Society (ISOC )

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Brett McDowell wrote:

> Given all the issues I've noticed being raised in the development of this
> policy, it's probably best to simply not allow any posting to the lists from
> non-participants in the group.
> How do folks feel about tightening this up to that level?
>
> Brett McDowell | +1.413.652.1248 | http://info.brettmcdowell.com
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Joni Brennan <jo...@ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Brett.
>>
>> I believe it would benefit us to develop operational policies (similar to
>> what the LC has done) to explain the implications and responsibilities
>> associated with the WG/DG Roles. This policy would answer questions like -
>> When can I 'accept' a rejected message'?
>>
>> Also, as there is no DG Secretary role this item would fall under the DG
>> Vice-chair or Chair responsibilties.
>>
>> Finally, we should consider putting a requested change in the LC queue to
>> update the Operating Procedures to reflect this item under the appropriate
>> role duties.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Joni
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Brett McDowell <em...@brettmcdowell.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what the MailMan software documentation says in this regard:
>>>

>>> *There are two ownership roles associated with each mailing list. The **list
>>> administrators** are the people who have ultimate control over all


>>> parameters of this mailing list. They are able to change any list

>>> configuration variable available through these administration web pages.*
>>>
>>> *The **list moderators** have more limited permissions; they are not able


>>> to change any list configuration variable, but they are allowed to tend to
>>> pending administration requests, including approving or rejecting held

>>> subscription requests, and disposing of held postings. Of course, the **list
>>> administrators** can also tend to pending requests.*

>>>> email: roger....@corp.aol.com <mailto:roger....@corp.aol.com> <roger....@corp.aol.com>


>>>> AIM: rjmartin99
>>>> phone: 703-265-6203
>>>> mobile: 703-389-1547
>>>> *******************************************/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Trustees mailing list
>>>> Trus...@kantarainitiative.org

>>>> <mailto:Trus...@kantarainitiative.org> <Trus...@kantarainitiative.org>


>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joni Brennan
>>>> IEEE-ISTO
>>>> Liberty Alliance Project
>>>> Director of Operations
>>>> voice:+1 732-226-4223

>>>> email: joni @ projectliberty.org <http://projectliberty.org> <http://projectliberty.org>
>>>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org <http://ieee-isto.org> <http://ieee-isto.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LC mailing listLC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

Nash, Andrew

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:55:05 PM7/2/09
to ly...@isoc.org, em...@brettmcdowell.com, L...@kantarainitiative.org, Roger....@corp.aol.com, trus...@kantarainitiative.org

+1

--Andrew

Brett McDowell

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 2:55:45 PM7/2/09
to ly...@isoc.org, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT, Roger....@corp.aol.com
And I'd add to that... if someone attempts to post to the list and the
topic is appropriate/legitimate, I would hope/encourage the Chair to
forward it to community@ for a "real" discussion (not to mention
reaching out to that person and suggesting they actually join the
Group).

Roger Martin

unread,
Jul 2, 2009, 3:09:13 PM7/2/09
to Brett McDowell, ly...@isoc.org, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
Based on this discussion it appears we have agreed to the following changes:
  1. Reword the first bullet in Section (5) to read:
  1. * All Lists are administered by Staff and moderated by the secretary Chair of the Group to which the List is associated.

  1. Delete the sixth bullet in section (5)
    * Group Lists are not moderated.
    I have made these (and my original rewrite) changes to the wiki:  http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Groups+Email+Discussion+List+Policy

       ...rogerM

    Brett McDowell wrote:
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Trustees mailing list
    Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
    
    
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
    
    
                
    _______________________________________________
    LC mailing list
    L...@kantarainitiative.org
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
    
    
              
    --
    Joni Brennan
    IEEE-ISTO
    Liberty Alliance Project
    Director of Operations
    voice:+1 732-226-4223
    email: joni @ projectliberty.org
    email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
    
    
    
    
    
            

    Brett McDowell

    unread,
    Jul 2, 2009, 3:12:59 PM7/2/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, ly...@isoc.org, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
    How about we add a parenthetical modifier to your proposed text so it
    reads "moderated by the Chair of the Group (or his/her delegate)" ?

    > listLC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

    Roger Martin

    unread,
    Jul 2, 2009, 3:17:00 PM7/2/09
    to Brett McDowell, ly...@isoc.org, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
    I don't believe that additional text is necessary since the Chair can normally delegate any duty. 

    However, if you think it should be there, go ahead and add it to the wiki text.

       ..rogerM
    
    
    Brett McDowell wrote:

    J. Trent Adams

    unread,
    Jul 6, 2009, 3:10:31 PM7/6/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
    Roger -

    In order to present the policy to the LC for approval on Wednesday's
    call, I'm proof-reading the version on the wiki, and making sure it
    closed the open issues from the threads:

    http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/BACh

    Assuming that this is the most up-to-date version (so we can simply
    point everyone at it rather than continuing to circulate docs), I do
    have a couple last-minute comments:

    1. It looks like the term "Contributor" still shows up
    in the second bullet of Section 4:

    "Anyone may Subscribe to any List with the
    provision that only Contributors may post to
    the List."

    Am I right in assuming that this should be
    updated to read:

    "Anyone may Subscribe to any List with the
    provision that only Participants of the Group
    may post to the List."

    2. As there is now a distinction between "administer"
    and "moderate" called out in Section 5, can we
    add the definitions for each that are based on what
    Brett pulled from the mail software? Here are my
    suggestions:

    "Administer: Full control of the Group List
    functionality such as changing List configuration
    variables, tend to pending requests, including the
    approval or rejection of held subscription requests,
    and disposing of held postings, etc."

    "Moderate: Limited control of the Group List
    functionality such as tending to pending requests,
    including the approval or rejection of held


    subscription requests, and disposing of held

    postings, etc. Changing List configuration variables
    are not included."

    3. Finally, how would you suggest addressing the issue
    that Lucy raised:

    "with this caveat, list administrators can and should
    forward on the the list any announcements that would
    be on interest. This should clearly be a forward (over
    the admin's email address) and not an approved
    posting over the original address."

    I'm assuming that what she's talking about is the
    forwarding of publicly-available information, and
    thus isn't encumbered by some other IPR regime.
    In this case, does this need to be called out in the
    policy, or is it blatantly obvious this is OK to do?

    Looking forward to resolution.

    Thanks,
    Trent

    >>> listLC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org


    >>>
    >>>
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> Trustees mailing list
    >>> Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> LC mailing list
    >>> L...@kantarainitiative.org
    >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Joni Brennan
    >>> IEEE-ISTO
    >>> Liberty Alliance Project
    >>> Director of Operations
    >>> voice:+1 732-226-4223
    >>> email: joni @ projectliberty.org
    >>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> Trustees mailing list
    >>> Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
    >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>

    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > LC mailing list
    > L...@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) ad...@isoc.org
    o) 703-439-2149

    _______________________________________________

    Roger Martin

    unread,
    Jul 7, 2009, 11:03:28 AM7/7/09
    to J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
    Trent,

    see inline below.

       ....RogerM


    J. Trent Adams wrote:
    Roger -
    
    In order to present the policy to the LC for approval on Wednesday's
    call, I'm proof-reading the version on the wiki, and making sure it
    closed the open issues from the threads:
    
    
    http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/BACh
    
    Assuming that this is the most up-to-date version (so we can simply
    point everyone at it rather than continuing to circulate docs), I do
    have a couple last-minute comments:
      
    
    
    [RM]  Yes,  http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/BACh is the most recent, up-to-date version.


     1. It looks like the term "Contributor" still shows up
         in the second bullet of Section 4:
    
         "Anyone may Subscribe to any List with the
         provision that only Contributors may post to
         the List."
    
         Am I right in assuming that this should be
         updated to read:
    
         "Anyone may Subscribe to any List with the
         provision that only Participants of the Group
         may post to the List."
      
    [RM]  Yes, it should be "Participants".  I had that change in the Word/PDF version but missed it when I updated the Wiki version.  Thanks for catching it.


     2. As there is now a distinction between "administer"
         and "moderate" called out in Section 5, can we
         add the definitions for each that are based on what
         Brett pulled from the mail software?  Here are my
         suggestions:
      
    [RM]  I don't see the necessity of adding definitions for "administer" and "moderate" but have no objection to doing do.
     
     Would it be correct to define "Moderate: the same as "Administer" with the exception that an Administrator cannot change List configuration variable."  (I am assuming that is correct.  Is it?)

         "Administer: Full control of the Group List
         functionality such as changing List configuration
         variables, tend to pending requests, including the
         approval or rejection of held subscription requests,
         and disposing of held postings, etc."
    
         "Moderate: Limited control of the Group List
         functionality such as tending to pending requests,
         including the approval or rejection of held
         subscription requests, and disposing of held
         postings, etc. Changing List configuration variables
         are not included."
    
     3. Finally, how would you suggest addressing the issue
         that Lucy raised:
    
         "with this caveat, list administrators can and should
         forward on the the list any announcements that would
         be on interest. This should clearly be a forward (over
         the admin's email address) and not an approved
         posting over the original address."
    
         I'm assuming that what she's talking about is the
         forwarding of publicly-available information, and
         thus isn't encumbered by some other IPR regime.
         In this case, does this need to be called out in the
         policy, or is it blatantly obvious this is OK to do?
      
    [RM]  I don't think this needs to be included in the "Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists."  It is, however, useful operating guidance that perhaps could be articulated elsewhere.

    J. Trent Adams

    unread,
    Jul 7, 2009, 11:11:36 AM7/7/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT
    Roger -

    Thanks for the quick turn-around.

    One nit in-line below. Otherwise I'm good to go.

    - Trent

    I think you've got 'em reversed, but essentially correct. "Administer"
    includes list config rights, while "Moderate" does not.

    >> "Administer: Full control of the Group List

    >> functionality /such as changing List configuration


    >> variables, tend to pending requests, including the
    >> approval or rejection of held subscription requests,

    >> and disposing of held postings, etc."/


    >>
    >> "Moderate: Limited control of the Group List

    >> functionality /such as tending to pending requests,


    >> including the approval or rejection of held
    >> subscription requests, and disposing of held

    >> postings, etc./ Changing List configuration variables

    >>>>> listLC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

    --
    J. Trent Adams
    =jtrentadams

    Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
    Internet Society
    http://www.isoc.org

    e) ad...@isoc.org
    o) 703-439-2149

    _______________________________________________

    Roger Martin

    unread,
    Jul 7, 2009, 11:19:55 AM7/7/09
    to J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Kantara BoT

    OK.  you are correct...I did reverse them.  It should be "Moderate: the same as "Administer"
    with the exception that a Moderator cannot change List configuration variables."


    configuration variable."

    J. Trent Adams wrote:

    J. Trent Adams

    unread,
    Jul 10, 2009, 5:07:56 PM7/10/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council
    Roger M. -

    On this week's LC call there was some push-back relating to the use of
    the term "moderate" in the email policy we're drafting.

    In short, there is concern that the term may imply a connotation we
    don't intend. While the definition we'd proposed is technically
    accurate according to the mailing list software we use, the broader
    community has a slightly different interpretation of the term which
    might pose problems in our effort to communicate our intent.

    Basically, we want to make it clear in the policy that there are
    essentially two sets of people who can "manage" the list (i.e. have
    access to a set of management tools controlling the software). One set
    is the KI Staff who are tasked with ensuring two things:

    1. The software is correctly configured and running.
    2. Checking to ensure Subscribers have signed the
    appropriate IPR policy for the associated Group
    and setting their posting permissions accordingly.

    The other set is comprised of those who (through delegation of the Group
    Leader) can perform only task 2 above.

    As I understand it, the problem is that the term "moderator" in common
    use also includes the notion of "reading queued messages and approving
    or denying the posting of the message based on the content." Even if we
    define the term differently in our policy, it is highly likely that the
    common usage will cause confusion.

    What if we changed the first bullet in Section 5 to read:

    # All Lists are administered by Staff and by the Chair of the Group (or
    his/her delegate) to which the List is associated.

    I'm not sure this solves the conundrum, but it might help clarify that
    the tasks are clerical in nature, and in no way indicate a "censuring"
    of messages.

    What do you think?

    - Trent


    Roger Martin wrote:
    >
    > OK. you are correct...I did reverse them. It should be /"Moderate:
    > the same as "Administer"
    > with the exception that *a Moderator* cannot change List configuration
    > variables."
    >
    >
    > /configuration variable."

    >>>>>>> listLC@kantarainitiative.orghttp://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

    --
    J. Trent Adams
    =jtrentadams

    Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
    Internet Society
    http://www.isoc.org

    e) ad...@isoc.org
    o) 703-439-2149

    _______________________________________________

    Eve Maler

    unread,
    Jul 11, 2009, 10:21:53 AM7/11/09
    to J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com
    I was one of those who spoke up with a concern (and I'm sorry for not
    having done so in email before the last call). It's definitely just
    about perceptions, but I would hate for Kantara to be perceived as the
    kind of org that judges whose messages get through based on what they
    say (vs. whether they've agreed to the IPR rules -- an objective vs.
    subjective criterion).

    Since there's no strong reason for our policy to adhere to the
    language imposed by a particular software package for particular
    mailing list management, I'm hoping it's possible to substitute some
    other word. And if I'm reading Trent's suggestion correctly below,
    he's saying we could just be less specific about the distinctions
    among the mailing list administration jobs -- which is fine with me
    (what if we switched from mailman to monarch or something? we don't
    want to have to revise the policy).

    Eve


    Eve Maler eve.maler @ sun.com
    Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345 6756
    Sun Microsystems Identity Software www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

    Eve Maler

    unread,
    Jul 11, 2009, 10:49:17 AM7/11/09
    to Eve Maler, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com
    Oops two senses of "they" below. The first one means "the
    messages" ("based on what the messages say") and the second one means
    "the list member" ("whether the list member has agreed to the IPR
    rules"). Still working on coffee dose #1 this morning...

    Eve

    Drummond Reed

    unread,
    Jul 13, 2009, 9:46:01 PM7/13/09
    to Eve Maler, J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com
    +1. Many folks will see the word "moderator" and wonder why we have
    moderated lists, which is not what these are at all.

    =Drummond

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: lc-bo...@kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-
    > bou...@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
    > Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:22 AM
    > To: J. Trent Adams
    > Cc: Leadership Council; Roger....@corp.aol.com
    > Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Revised DRAFT: Policy for Joining Groups and Group
    > Discussion Lists
    >

    Cahill, Conor P

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 7:52:41 AM7/14/09
    to Drummond Reed, Eve Maler, J. Trent Adams, Leadership Council, Roger....@corp.aol.com
    +1...

    Conor

    Roger Martin

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 9:40:34 AM7/14/09
    to Leadership Council
    *********************************
    **I'm resending because it may not have **
    **gone out yesterday.  My apologies if   **
    **this is duplicate spam.                         **
    **                                  ...rogerM         **
    *********************************


    Trent and Eve,

    I have attempted to articulate the issues that have been raised below, followed by my proposed resolution (see also the attached pdf file):

    Issues:

    1. In section 5, Joni proposed that the first bullet be changed to indicate that not only staff but leadership of a Group would have access to all mail sent to a List that is not posted (because the sender does not have permission to post to the List).  The reason for this was twofold: (1) ensure that Group Leadership was aware of unposted mail that is received, and (2) keep from placing an undue burden on staff.

    2. In attempting to resolve this, I proposed using the terms "administer" and "moderate" to describe the roles of staff and Group Leadership in this regard.

    3. The LC discussion pointed out that use of the terms "administer" and "moderate" have very specific technical meaning within the context of Mailman. As a result, "moderate" would be interpreted by many (especially the technically knowledgeable) to mean something other than what we intended and would run contrary to the goals of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness that Kantara Initiative is built on.

    4. How a List is managed (whatever that might mean) is not, IMO, a necessary part of the policy on who may Join a Group and who may Subscribe to a Group List.  Those are operational details that can be dealt with in other ways.  If this is not part of the policy we can modify exactly how we manage each List as the need arises without needing to revise the Policy.

      In some cases, or at certain times in the life cycle of a Group, the Group leadership may want to closely monitor the email that is sent to a list but not posted because the sender does not have posting rights.   In other cases the Group leadership may not need to see these messages and a simple reply mail to the poster that explains that one must be a Participant in the Group to post to this List will suffice.

    5. In an earlier draft of the Policy there was an unambiguous statement that "Group Lists are not moderated."  That statement should be restored.

    6. Sections (4) and (5) contain redundant content.  Some of Section (5) should be moved to Section (4) and Section (5) should be deleted.
    Proposed Resolution:
    1. Combine Sections (4) and (5) and rename it  "Joining a Group List"

    2. Rename Section (3): "Joining a Group"

    3. Delete the first bullet in Section (5): "All Lists are administered by Staff and moderated by the Chair of the Group to which the List is associated."

    4. Reformat the  2nd, 3rd, and 4th bullets as sub-bullets of "Anyone may Subscribe to any Group List."

    5. Re-insert the last bullet: "Group Lists are not moderated"

    6. see the text for some other minor changes that I believe are self-explanatory.
       ...rogerM

    J. Trent Adams wrote:
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Trustees mailing list
    Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
    
    
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org
    ______________________________________________
    LC mailing list
    
    L...@kantarainitiative.org
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
    
    
    --
    Joni Brennan
    IEEE-ISTO
    Liberty Alliance Project
    Director of Operations
    voice:+1 732-226-4223
    email: joni @ projectliberty.org
    email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
    _______________________________________________
    Trustees mailing list
    Trus...@kantarainitiative.org
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.          
                    
    
                  
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    _______________________________________________
    LC mailing list
    L...@kantarainitiative.org
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
                
    Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists-rjm4.pdf

    Eve Maler

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 10:33:49 AM7/14/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council
    The policy doc looks great!  Thanks for reworking it; the intent is now very clear.

    (Only one nit: I think "principal", rather than "principle", is meant in the very first sentence.)

    Eve

    On 14 Jul 2009, at 6:40 AM, Roger Martin wrote:

    <Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists-rjm4.pdf>

    Roger Martin

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 10:55:14 AM7/14/09
    to Eve Maler, Leadership Council
    Thanks, Eve.

    You're right.  As a matter of principle (and grammar), "principle" in the first sentence should be "principal". :-)

    I have made these changes to the online version:

                  http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Groups+Email+Discussion+List+Policy

        ...rogerM

    Joni Brennan

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 11:41:05 AM7/14/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council
    +1 - I agree that the reworked policy is now very clear and I'm on board with it. 

    Thanks,

    Joni

    _______________________________________________
    LC mailing list
    L...@kantarainitiative.org
    http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org

    J. Trent Adams

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 11:54:22 AM7/14/09
    to Roger....@corp.aol.com, Leadership Council
    Roger et al. -

    Thanks for your help bringing this to closure.

    I hope everyone in the LC will read the latest draft on the wiki so we
    can give it the nod on tomorrow's call.

    Thanks again,
    Trent


    Joni Brennan wrote:
    > +1 - I agree that the reworked policy is now very clear and I'm on
    > board with it.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Joni
    >
    > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Roger Martin
    > <roger....@corp.aol.com <mailto:roger....@corp.aol.com>> wrote:
    >
    > Thanks, Eve.
    >
    > You're right. As a matter of principle (and grammar), "principle"
    > in the first sentence should be "principal". :-)
    >
    > I have made these changes to the online version:
    >
    >
    >
    > http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Groups+Email+Discussion+List+Policy
    >
    > ...rogerM
    >
    > Eve Maler wrote:
    >> The policy doc looks great! Thanks for reworking it; the intent
    >> is now very clear.
    >>
    >> (Only one nit: I think "principal", rather than "principle", is
    >> meant in the very first sentence.)
    >>
    >> Eve
    >>
    >> On 14 Jul 2009, at 6:40 AM, Roger Martin wrote:
    >>
    >>> <Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists-rjm4.pdf>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eve Maler eve.maler @

    >> sun.com <http://sun.com>


    >> Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345
    >> 6756
    >> Sun Microsystems Identity Software

    >> www.xmlgrrl.com/blog <http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog>
    >>
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > LC mailing list
    > L...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>


    > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Joni Brennan
    > IEEE-ISTO
    > Liberty Alliance Project
    > Director of Operations
    > voice:+1 732-226-4223

    > email: joni @ projectliberty.org <http://projectliberty.org>


    > email: joni @ ieee-isto.org <http://ieee-isto.org>
    >
    >
    >
    >

    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------


    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > LC mailing list
    > L...@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) ad...@isoc.org
    o) 703-439-2149

    _______________________________________________

    Bob Pinheiro

    unread,
    Jul 14, 2009, 12:56:46 PM7/14/09
    to L...@kantarainitiative.org
    The Overview section of the policy states: "When joining a WG or DG, you will be required to agree to the Group's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policy by completing a Group Participation Agreement for that Group.  Upon submission, your request will be validated by KI staff, and you will be added to the Group's discussion List."

    I believe this is not correct.  A new participant is not automatically subscribed to the email discussion list, but needs to separately subscribe.  In fact, the invitation emails sent out to the Community mailing list outline a three step process that a new participant is supposed to follow: (a) agree to the IPR; (b) subscribe to the mailing list; (c) get an account with an Identity Provider.   However, I've noticed that there are several participants in the Consumer Identity WG that did not subscribe to the mailing list, not to mention getting an account with an IdP.  I'm assuming this is because these three steps are completely independent of each other and are not tied together in some way for new participants.

    To correct this, I would like to suggest that the home page template for each of the WGs/DGs be modified to spell out the complete process for participating in a WG/DG.  A newcomer wanting to participate in any of the WGs/DGs will likely not be aware of this process.  Ideally, the mechanism for joining a group should link these three steps together. One option could be that clicking on the JOIN THIS GROUP button brings up a page that allows the new participant to complete each of the three steps in one place.    Another option could be that when the new participant clicks on the JOIN THIS GROUP button and fills out the basic information requested and then hits the Submit button, the system could automatically take the person to the email subscription page.  When this is completed, the new participant could then be taken to the page for signing up with an Identity Provider.

    I understand there may be cases where there would need to be a delay after the first step, such as when the staff needs to validate a new participant request.  In that case, once the request is validated, the system could automatically subscribe the new participant to the mailing list.  A notification email could be sent with instructions for getting an account with an Identity Provider.

    Bob
    ---------------------------
    Bob Pinheiro
    Chair, Consumer Identity WG
    908-654-1939
    kan...@bobpinheiro.com
    www.bobpinheiro.com
    Reply all
    Reply to author
    Forward
    0 new messages