Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

Anunak, that's a very good point about centralization.
I completely agree with that as being a problem.

As for your  comment about forums requiring direct
participation, that doesn't make any sense to me.
Unlike a mailing list, which _does_ require direct
and affirmative action by actually signing up, a forum
can be just seen without any direct action on the
part of the viewer. Although you're right in that one
does need to sign up, just like with a mailing list.
But one can at least read it (depending on settings)
without anybody knowing or the user committing to the
project in any way. I would also point out that the
idea that one "has to go there" is just a matter of
personal preference. I'm a member of many forums and
I never "go there". I just leave that window open
indefinitely - for years, even. Not doing that is
just a personal choice and has absolutely nothing
to do with the nature of forums.

Regards,
        Ole


On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 00:15:44 +0100
Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:

> I see two big issues with forums: centralization and
> requirement of participation.
> 
> With a mailing list I always see new content passively as
> it arrives in my mailbox, I get to the discussion when I
> can and it's in a place I can easily check together with
> other stuff I check. A forum requires direct
> paritcipation - you need to actually go there and visit
> it, check it regularly for new content, etc. and it'd
> still be easy to miss or get lost in tons of messages.
> There's more thought going in emails than any forum,
> ever, IMO.
> 
> Centralization is an actual worry - the forums need to be
> maintained by someone; someone who has full access to all
> its contents, the users' private messages, etc. That's
> pretty dangerous as it could be very easy to remove
> opinions that the maintaner(s) don't like, silence
> opposition or even change or fake messages. With a
> mailing list everyone has all messages at all times, plus
> there is an archive, and anyone can independently check
> that they are receiving the same messages that they are
> actually writing. It's also way harder to silence
> someone's opinion, especially without notice.
> 
> Just something to think about,
> Amunak
> 
> 
> On 01.01.2018 3:50, gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:
> > I mean, that's probably just because we're discussing
> > it on the mailing list. So we don't usually get the
> > opinions of anyone who isn't masochistic enough to
> > subject themselves to this daily. The result? Echo
> > chamber.
> >
> > Somebody who would leave over meaningful progress
> > and won't consider using something other than mutt
> > or Emacs for communicating with the project isn't
> > that much of a loss.
> >
> > There is nothing that can't be resolved in a forum
> > by trivial amounts of moderation and a reCaptcha.
> >
> > The way I see it, as long as we stand a chance to
> > attract new users to the project in greater numbers
> > than is possible under the status quo, the old
> > guard's sensitivities can be disregarded.
> >
> > I'd rather see us succeed at reaching people.
> >
> > On 2017-12-31 21:21, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:  
> >> You've missed the results of the last few times
> >> that has been discussed. There are people here
> >> who make it quite clear that a mailing list is
> >> all they will accept and they will leave if we
> >> change that.
> >>
> >> A forum needs to be maintained, which is a problem,
> >> I will be overrun with spam in a few days otherwise.
> >> Personally I prefer and appreciate the benefits of
> >> a forum, but the general consensus is different here.
> >> Also, the proposal and consequent test site, for
> >> a system that does a parallel forum and mailing list
> >> where users can chose one or both and not miss anything
> >> has recently failed miserably. I will also point out
> >> that we have a perfectly good forum that was set up
> >> the last time forums were discussed. I put a lot of
> >> effort into it at the beginning but many members
> >> boycott it. It's just not going to fly.
> >>
> >> Sorry about the reality check. :)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>         Ole
> >>
> >>
> >> re new here. That discussion comes up frequently
> >> and you apparently have missed
> >>
> >> On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:55:56 -0500
> >> gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:
> >>  
> >>> The best thing that could happen is if we abandoned
> >>> the mailing list completely. A forum could provide
> >>> for better organization of threads, improved
> >>> accessibility, the ability to pin and prioritize
> >>> important conversations and announcements, and still
> >>> provide a legacy interface for email updates on
> >>> conversations that are opt-in rather than the
> >>> baseline requirement of participating in governance
> >>> decisions and staying up to date on internal affairs.
> >>>
> >>> On 2017-12-31 19:37, Rouben wrote:  
> >>> > I’m afraid I cannot comment on most of the items
> >>> > gitgud mentioned, however, one thing I will agree
> >>> > on is the fact that mailing list voting can be
> >>> > problematic. Obviously, it has worked for years,
> >>> > however, it also has the potential to become
> >>> > contentious in certain situations as we’ve all seen.
> >>> >
> >>> > Therefore I want to float the following idea by the
> >>> > members of the list...
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. We get a proper online voting system. I mean a
> >>> > proper system, not something we can cobble together
> >>> > from existing code that does something similar... I
> >>> > mean a mature, supported system.
> >>> >
> >>> > 2. I am personally in favour of going with a
> >>> > commercial system for the following reasons:
> >>> >
> >>> > a) it will a third party system, not operated by
> >>> > any of our members, and will therefore be
> >>> > “impartial” vs. if it was operated by an OpenNIC
> >>> > member.
> >>> >
> >>> > b) a commercial system will most likely require some
> >>> > sort of payment. This financial obligation should be
> >>> > fronted by those calling the election as a sign of
> >>> > good faith that they are serious.
> >>> >
> >>> > I know of one we’d used at work for student council
> >>> > elections, called simplyvoting.com [1] that charge
> >>> > per election $200US per 250 registered voters (how
> >>> > many members do we have?) There are countless
> >>> > others, I am just providing an example.
> >>> >
> >>> > I am sure you’d be able to think of counterpoints to
> >>> > this. One I can think of is that for some members,
> >>> > the voting system fees may not be affordable for
> >>> > whatever reason... e.g. for residents of some
> >>> > Eastern European countries $200 may be closer to
> >>> > one’s monthly salary and therefore be completely
> >>> > unaffordable. Since OpenNIC is open to everyone,
> >>> > this may be an obvious issue. Not sure how to solve
> >>> > it.
> >>> >
> >>> > 3. Finally, for the members that are more
> >>> > democratically purist, I want to highlight that
> >>> > online voting itself is imperfect, and there are
> >>> > good reasons why a lot of governments still use an
> >>> > old school paper ballot system. This video covers
> >>> > the challenges: https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI
> >>> > However, a dedicated, purpose built online voting
> >>> > system is surely better than a mailing list (i.e.
> >>> > no system at all).
> >>> >
> >>> > So I am curious on these 2 topics, in principle and
> >>> > in practice:
> >>> >
> >>> > 1. What do you think of a dedicated voting system?
> >>> >
> >>> > 2. How do you feel about going with a commercial,
> >>> > third-party operated system that the proposal
> >>> > initiators would need to (potentially) pay for, say,
> >>> > per election?
> >>> >
> >>> > Rouben
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 18:26 <gitgud AT tfwno.gf>
> >>> > wrote: 
> >>> >> As is probably obvious by now, with the vote
> >>> >> for .front concluded, the
> >>> >> resolution
> >>> >> to approve .front as a top level domain has
> >>> >> failed. In a tally of 14 YES
> >>> >> - 14 NO,
> >>> >> the motion has failed to achieve a simple majority
> >>> >> of support in the mailing list.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There's a lot to get into, but to start, I will
> >>> >> fully admit that I have
> >>> >> been less
> >>> >> than stringent about the "official procedure" of
> >>> >> this vote. As it stands, the voting
> >>> >> rules in place are nebulous, lack
> >>> >> comprehensiveness, and leave a lot of
> >>> >> responsibility
> >>> >> to the person who puts forward the proposal. This
> >>> >> is nobody's fault, as
> >>> >> not much has
> >>> >> actually come through the mailing list in a while,
> >>> >> but is likely an oversight that will
> >>> >> need to be addressed in the future. If I took
> >>> >> liberties during the proceedings,
> >>> >> it is because I found them necessary to take and
> >>> >> the members of the community I talked
> >>> >> with were largely comfortable with me doing so.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> There was a certain point in this vote when I asked
> >>> >> one voter, Philipp
> >>> >> Schafft, to clarify
> >>> >> an invalid vote he had cast during this vote.
> >>> >> Philipp, a Tier One operator and key member of
> >>> >> the organization, used the opportunity to step
> >>> >> onto a soap box and claim
> >>> >> that his actions and
> >>> >> his right to them were a pillar of democratic
> >>> >> values that must not be
> >>> >> infringed, and that my
> >>> >> request that he "fix" his vote was an assault on
> >>> >> these values. That everything I had done was
> >>> >> invalid and undemocratic, and that I had in some
> >>> >> way violated the sacred
> >>> >> "democracy" of OpenNIC.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On a vote as contentious as .front's has been, I
> >>> >> wagered that Philipp
> >>> >> would perhaps want the opportunity
> >>> >> to think and respond more critically on the vote
> >>> >> than he had, especially
> >>> >> with his considerable position
> >>> >> in the organization. In whatever misguided way I
> >>> >> figured the decision
> >>> >> validated the request, I was
> >>> >> trying to be polite and give him an opportunity he
> >>> >> might have taken for
> >>> >> granted earlier in the vote at
> >>> >> our proverbial round table.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> OpenNIC is not a state, but an organization.
> >>> >> Perhaps in a democracy that
> >>> >> governs a nation and not
> >>> >> servers, Philipp would have a point about "freedom
> >>> >> of speech", the importance of his ability
> >>> >> to cast an inane vote, and the required
> >>> >> inflexibility of the rules in
> >>> >> place. But this isn't a parliament
> >>> >> or a state house, but a mailing list for an
> >>> >> alternative DNS. More importantly, this is an
> >>> >> organization where flexibility is not just the
> >>> >> norm, but an outright sanity measure
> >>> >> that makes working on this project
> >>> >> bearable.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Meanwhile, despite a lengthy comment period of
> >>> >> over a months, few of the
> >>> >> users that participated in
> >>> >> the vote ever commented or suggested amendment to
> >>> >> the proposal, simply
> >>> >> showing up to voice their
> >>> >> disapproval of this addition to the proposal. Some
> >>> >> in the IRC had not
> >>> >> even read the proposal,
> >>> >> and were under the impression that the proposal had
> >>> >> nothing to do with
> >>> >> its stated objective.
> >>> >> Admittedly, this is their right; still, I can't
> >>> >> help but regard a lot of
> >>> >> the opposition and
> >>> >> even a lot of the support as "arbitrary" since it
> >>> >> was afforded scarce
> >>> >> attention before the vote
> >>> >> began.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So with that vote chucked in the bin, the
> >>> >> whole .front resolution fails
> >>> >> to pass. I'm sure Philipp will
> >>> >> take issue with the fact that I included a vote
> >>> >> cast shortly after the
> >>> >> stated end of the ballot in the tally,
> >>> >> but to the credit of that person, his vote was an
> >>> >> intelligible response
> >>> >> and at this stage, the ultimate and
> >>> >> final result of the vote remains unchanged. After
> >>> >> months of ramblings
> >>> >> about unbreakable Malbolge encrypted
> >>> >> domain names, talk of establishing top level
> >>> >> domains for trademarked video game brands, and a
> >>> >> completely stalled effort towards establishing or
> >>> >> at least adopting a Certificate
> >>> >> Authority, I had imagined that the
> >>> >> .front proposal backed by members of the already
> >>> >> proven team administrating the .chan top level
> >>> >> domain would be a breath of fresh air.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I was wrong.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't know what I'll do from here. But I do know
> >>> >> that I no longer have
> >>> >> the enthusiasm I did for this project
> >>> >> or the hope that I will be able to accomplish
> >>> >> anything meaningful as a
> >>> >> member of it. I feel like I've wasted my
> >>> >> time and effort contributing to it, and that I've
> >>> >> wasted the time of others in encouraging others to
> >>> >> do the same. It was a considerable endeavor
> >>> >> undertaken by verax and Pathore to write
> >>> >> and deploy an entirely new registration system
> >>> >> capable of supporting registration across multiple
> >>> >> TLDs including .chan,
> >>> >> and as of present, I do not feel confident that
> >>> >> their time was well spent.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> That's it.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --------
> >>> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> >>> >> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> > Rouben
> >>> >
> >>> > Links:
> >>> > ------
> >>> > [1] http://simplyvoting.com
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --------
> >>> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >>> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> >>> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --------
> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing
> >> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  
>