What seems to be your embarrassment at the state of PAB is not without
foundation. Still, when you say that you don't want people to see how
confused and lacking of purpose we are, you are really just saying that you
don't want people to see us as we are.
To my mind, this is a little like not wanting to go to the party because
you got a bad haircut that day. Surely the only way to cure the problems
of PAB is to change the way we are, not how we look. I think the PAB is a
terrific organization and has the potential to be a new Internet model.
It's current incarnation is a little confused, but since I think a greater
scrutiny make us better faster, I favor it.
I would like to see this list archived and made public, but for reading
only. In this particular I agree with Perry, I don't want the babble of
the Newdom list to permeate this one.
Since the list is leaky and anyone is free to distribute whatever they have
saved anyway, I think restricting access, as has been the case until now,
does nothing to prevent sworn enemies from reading the list (if they're
that maniacal), but it does pointlessly provide ammunition to those who
continue to chorus that "this process" is secretive and closed.
What's more, I think that after a decent time period (a couple of years???)
the entire archive of earlier messages, of which I have a copy as do
others, should be made public as well.
Antony
At 12:04 PM 1/10/98 +1300, Peter Mott wrote:
>>> I dont think we will encourage more people to join up by making the list
>>> available to the public. It will demonstrate to them the high level of
>>> confusion and lack of sense of purpose.
>
>>This is exacly the check i think the PAB needs. we have spent soooo
>>much time dealing with the non issues and need greater participation.
>
>I still cant see how telling the world we are confused and lack a sense
>of purpose will encourge others to participate.
>
>>remember all your mails are being archived, if they are ever made public
>>the public will be able to see that you didn't want them to see
>>what you have written.
>
>So we should not debate the merits of making the list available for public
>reading, because if it happens the world will see what we say?
>
>I have no problem with the world knowing I dont think non-participants
>should
>not be able to read our internal correspondence.
>
>Regards
>
>Peter Mott
>2Day Internet Limited.
>http://www.2day.net.nz
>