Re: <nettime> process reporting?

[Geoffrey Goodell via Nettime-tmp <nettime-tmp@mail.ljudmila.org>]

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
#  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: