| Karen O'rourke via Nettime-tmp on Mon, 29 May 2023 13:16:46 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> Nettime-tmp Digest, Vol 1, Issue 8 stop |
Sent from my mobile phone > On 29 May 2023, at 12:00, nettime-tmp-request@mail.ljudmila.org wrote: > > Send Nettime-tmp mailing list submissions to > nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mail.ljudmila.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-tmp > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nettime-tmp-request@mail.ljudmila.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nettime-tmp-owner@mail.ljudmila.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Nettime-tmp digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: process reporting? (Thomas Gramstad) > 2. Re: process reporting? (Geoffrey Goodell) > 3. Re: process reporting? (Geoffrey Goodell) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 22:08:40 +0200 (CEST) > From: Thomas Gramstad <thomas.gramstad@ub.uio.no> > To: Ted Byfield <tedbyfield@gmail.com> > Cc: nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org > Subject: Re: <nettime> process reporting? > Message-ID: <814d59b6-33e-4e8f-9e7a-b7561e11a28f@ifi.uio.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > >> On Sat, 27 May 2023, Ted Byfield via Nettime-tmp wrote: >> >>> On 27 May 2023, at 14:33, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: >>> >>> So, let's start handing over the keys. Felix and Ted -- and >>> yes, thank you very much for your service -- have you started >>> handing over control to Menno and Geert and company? And if >>> not, why not? >> >> I've already answered this question in two ways on the list: >> (1) we're not going to fall back on first-mover advantage, and >> (2) the proposal was misinformed or, less benignly, misleading >> about potential moderators. Now I'll add two more: (3) it's >> already led to one on-list message with bizarre and borderline >> ad-hominem accusations involving "endless"(?!) teenage spats, >> "dark unspecified hints of bad faith," and an analogy to >> Bismarck; and, off-list, (4) the proposal's own advocates can't >> seem to get their stories straight about who is or isn't >> involved. We won't be bum-rushed into that or any other >> proposal by a handful of aggressive voices. And if it feels >> like any proposal is being pushed in ways that shut down or >> preclude further discussion, that's probably a pretty good >> indicator of the approach they'd bring to running the list. >> >> Cheers, >> Ted > > I would add even one more concern to the ones that Ted raised: > > I think it is important that the technical host organization is > a collective functioning with a long time horizon -- and not a > Single Person Organization that may collapse when the founder > fades away or retires. From what I understand (admittedly from > far away), there are concerns that INC is an SPO. > > Thomas Gramstad > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 10:08:27 +0100 > From: Geoffrey Goodell <goodell@oxonia.net> > To: Thomas Gramstad <thomas@ifi.uio.no> > Cc: Ted Byfield <tedbyfield@gmail.com>, Thomas Gramstad > <thomas.gramstad@ub.uio.no>, nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org > Subject: Re: <nettime> process reporting? > Message-ID: <ZHRri+M/daSyBmD6@oxonia.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Dear Thomas, > >> On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 10:08:40PM +0200, Thomas Gramstad via Nettime-tmp wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 27 May 2023, Ted Byfield via Nettime-tmp wrote: >>> >>>> On 27 May 2023, at 14:33, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: >>> >>>> So, let's start handing over the keys. Felix and Ted -- and yes, >>>> thank you very much for your service -- have you started handing >>>> over control to Menno and Geert and company? And if not, why not? >>> >>> I've already answered this question in two ways on the list: (1) we're >>> not going to fall back on first-mover advantage, and (2) the proposal >>> was misinformed or, less benignly, misleading about potential >>> moderators. Now I'll add two more: (3) it's already led to one on-list >>> message with bizarre and borderline ad-hominem accusations involving >>> "endless"(?!) teenage spats, "dark unspecified hints of bad faith," and >>> an analogy to Bismarck; and, off-list, (4) the proposal's own advocates >>> can't seem to get their stories straight about who is or isn't involved. >>> We won't be bum-rushed into that or any other proposal by a handful of >>> aggressive voices. And if it feels like any proposal is being pushed in >>> ways that shut down or preclude further discussion, that's probably a >>> pretty good indicator of the approach they'd bring to running the list. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ted >> >> I would add even one more concern to the ones that Ted raised: >> >> I think it is important that the technical host organization is >> a collective functioning with a long time horizon -- and not a >> Single Person Organization that may collapse when the founder >> fades away or retires. From what I understand (admittedly from >> far away), there are concerns that INC is an SPO. > > And I think it is important for us to have a pony, as well! > > This is a wishlist item. You're right about the SPO problem, but I would argue > that it has been with us since the beginning, and the scenario you describe is > precisely the scenario we are in right now. Moreover, is KEIN or Ljudmila > anything other than an SPO? Specifying a requirement that Nettime would have a > characteristic that it had never had before as a prerequisite for its survival > is silly. > > Who gets to decide whether a proposal is 'good enough' or not? Surely it > should be the people with the most interest in continuing the list. Forget > about 'legacy' considerations. At least some of us here want to see the list > continue. If the best we can scrounge in terms of hosting or management looks > like an SPO to some of us, then so be it. > > We need specific metrics for evaluating a proposal before we can reject it fairly. > What are the minimum requirements? What specific functions do we need? > > I can think of a few: > > (a) a leadership team of at least one person; > > (b) accountability of this leadership team to the list membership, supported by > communication and consensus; > > (c) a physical (well, maybe virtual is OK) server for which we have permission > to run mailman or similar software; > > (d) a reliable public Internet connection with a static IP address for that > server, and without firewall rules that block the aforementioned mail server; > > (e) DNS records for that server, including all of the SPF/DKIM entries that we > need in the post-2017 era; > > (f) someone with the right skills committed to maintaining the server, > including its hardware, network connectivity, operating system, and software > stack; and > > (g) someone with the right skills committed to managing the mailing list > operation and mail server, who can respond tactically to problems as they > arise. > > Do we need anything else? > > Which of those seven criteria did Menno's proposal not satisfy? Let's be > specific, so that we can help fill in the gaps. Let's do it on the list, so > that it is clear that we are not just rejecting proposals out of hand without > considering how they might be improved. > > It is OK for there to be multiple proposals, or even for multiple people to > offer to contribute to different functions listed above. The more the merrier; > we need to see what we have. > > We're doing this in good faith -- let's get it done. > > Best wishes -- > > Geoff > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 10:22:49 +0100 > From: Geoffrey Goodell <goodell@oxonia.net> > To: Thomas Gramstad <thomas@ifi.uio.no>, > nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org, Thomas Gramstad > <thomas.gramstad@ub.uio.no> > Subject: Re: <nettime> process reporting? > Message-ID: <ZHRu6YJt0SMww3mi@oxonia.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >> On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 10:08:27AM +0100, Geoffrey Goodell via Nettime-tmp wrote: >> Dear Thomas, >> >>> On Sat, 27 May 2023 at 10:08:40PM +0200, Thomas Gramstad via Nettime-tmp wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 27 May 2023, Ted Byfield via Nettime-tmp wrote: >>> >>>> On 27 May 2023, at 14:33, Geoffrey Goodell wrote: >>>> >>>>> So, let's start handing over the keys. Felix and Ted -- and yes, >>>>> thank you very much for your service -- have you started handing >>>>> over control to Menno and Geert and company? And if not, why not? >>>> >>>> I've already answered this question in two ways on the list: (1) we're >>>> not going to fall back on first-mover advantage, and (2) the proposal >>>> was misinformed or, less benignly, misleading about potential >>>> moderators. Now I'll add two more: (3) it's already led to one on-list >>>> message with bizarre and borderline ad-hominem accusations involving >>>> "endless"(?!) teenage spats, "dark unspecified hints of bad faith," and >>>> an analogy to Bismarck; and, off-list, (4) the proposal's own advocates >>>> can't seem to get their stories straight about who is or isn't involved. >>>> We won't be bum-rushed into that or any other proposal by a handful of >>>> aggressive voices. And if it feels like any proposal is being pushed in >>>> ways that shut down or preclude further discussion, that's probably a >>>> pretty good indicator of the approach they'd bring to running the list. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Ted >>> >>> I would add even one more concern to the ones that Ted raised: >>> >>> I think it is important that the technical host organization is >>> a collective functioning with a long time horizon -- and not a >>> Single Person Organization that may collapse when the founder >>> fades away or retires. From what I understand (admittedly from >>> far away), there are concerns that INC is an SPO. >> >> And I think it is important for us to have a pony, as well! >> >> This is a wishlist item. You're right about the SPO problem, but I would argue >> that it has been with us since the beginning, and the scenario you describe is >> precisely the scenario we are in right now. Moreover, is KEIN or Ljudmila >> anything other than an SPO? Specifying a requirement that Nettime would have a >> characteristic that it had never had before as a prerequisite for its survival >> is silly. >> >> Who gets to decide whether a proposal is 'good enough' or not? Surely it >> should be the people with the most interest in continuing the list. Forget >> about 'legacy' considerations. At least some of us here want to see the list >> continue. If the best we can scrounge in terms of hosting or management looks >> like an SPO to some of us, then so be it. >> >> We need specific metrics for evaluating a proposal before we can reject it fairly. >> What are the minimum requirements? What specific functions do we need? >> >> I can think of a few: >> >> (a) a leadership team of at least one person; >> >> (b) accountability of this leadership team to the list membership, supported by >> communication and consensus; >> >> (c) a physical (well, maybe virtual is OK) server for which we have permission >> to run mailman or similar software; >> >> (d) a reliable public Internet connection with a static IP address for that >> server, and without firewall rules that block the aforementioned mail server; >> >> (e) DNS records for that server, including all of the SPF/DKIM entries that we >> need in the post-2017 era; >> >> (f) someone with the right skills committed to maintaining the server, >> including its hardware, network connectivity, operating system, and software >> stack; and >> >> (g) someone with the right skills committed to managing the mailing list >> operation and mail server, who can respond tactically to problems as they >> arise. >> >> Do we need anything else? >> >> Which of those seven criteria did Menno's proposal not satisfy? Let's be >> specific, so that we can help fill in the gaps. Let's do it on the list, so >> that it is clear that we are not just rejecting proposals out of hand without >> considering how they might be improved. >> >> It is OK for there to be multiple proposals, or even for multiple people to >> offer to contribute to different functions listed above. The more the merrier; >> we need to see what we have. >> >> We're doing this in good faith -- let's get it done. >> >> Best wishes -- >> >> Geoff > > P.S. By item (g) I specifically mean to include any technical work needed to > satisfy the requirements of self-appointed kings such as Google or thugs such > as SORBS and Spamhaus. And, for the avoidance of doubt, we don't need > moderators to continue; see my earlier message. The idea that we need to > solicit moderators is a dangerous distraction. What we need now is for people > to continue running the list. > > Best wishes -- > > Geoff > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: https://mail.ljudmila.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-tmp > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Nettime-tmp Digest, Vol 1, Issue 8 > ***************************************** # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: https://mail.ljudmila.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-tmp # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: