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: