[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy
>In the discussion about whether to impose rules that may lead to
>being excluded from posting for certain periods of time, I find
>to Baptista relevant.
I agree on that, of course.
>> Why can't there be two (or more) lists? The uncensored list, which
>> be the "official" record, and a "filtered" list (or more than one),
>> everyone who uses that list agrees to the filter rules *by the very
>> of subscribing to the list*.
>We could. But I don't belive it would be right, because it would
>those of us who feel obliged to participate to follow the unfiltered
>If they take the responsibility of "official" action, they have the
>following the "official" discussion (IMHO).
You are right from an abstract POV, but I believe that the approach that
we shall take is more "market oriented". There's an evident need for a
"filtered" list, and I guess that we have already a good sense of the
majority for the content of the filter. Of course, the filter should be
dynamic, and include new clauses as well as releasing old ones after a
defined time frame (you'll never know - people may change). But the
percentage of people choosing either list will provide enough indication
on whether the filter is correct or needs adjustment.
>And I don't want to force anyone to listen to everything that's posted
>the list, no matter what its quality is; that's too harsh a punishment
>volunteering to do work for the community.
I don't see the need for reading each and every post of the unfiltered
list. A lot of people that are subscribed to the unfiltered list, but
whose postings will reach the filtered list, could easily point out to
us that criteria need revision, and a quick check on the archives could
allow us to take action.
The problem here is the efficient use of the (scarse) resources in order
to provide a better service to the maximum extent possible of people,
not to use (waste?) a huge amount of resources for making 100% happy a
minority. In Project Management you have the "golden" 80-20 rule: 80% of
the result with the 20% of the effort. Of course, if others volounteer
to do part of the job, the situation may change, but under the current
circumstances I feel obliged to take the responsibility to tell
everybody: "You can't have everything".
>Note also that the rules that I suggested do *not* envision banning a
>person permanently from the list, and do *not* envision using the
>expression of an idea as a reason for suspending people's right to
Filters shall be dynamic, as I said.
>Numerous people have expressed support for the idea of "two lists".
>I believe they are right - the questions really boil down to:
>- Which one of these is called "ga"?
>- Which one of these is "official"?
>A new version of the suggestion will be forthcoming this weekend.
>The changes a majority seem to agree on are:
>- The "unfiltered" list will be archived.
>- The matter of publishing the "unfiltered" archives needs further
>investigation; the only argument so far against such publication is
Not really, there's also another consideration.
Taking for granted that it is easier (and cheaper) to flood the GA with
messages than the Canadian Government with faxes, I tend to assume that
this is what is likely to happen.
This will mean a heavy use of the resources (besides patience), and I am
not sure that the DNSO can afford it.
Somebody on this list has already made the remark that it is easy to be
liberal with somebody else's resources. I may add that it will be a very
bad service from our part to allow monopolisation of the resources by
few people, letting the vast majority suffer from the shortage.
>The other issues raised:
>- Requirement for positive identification of people on the list
>- Allowing people to post using a "handle" (an identifier that is not
> connected to their name)
>- Allowing access to the email addresses of subscribers ("who")
>- The question of who decides to impose a suspension of posting rights
>do not seem to be addressed by enough people in the debate to warrant
>changing the current proposal.
>Joop Ternstra has volunteered the use of his facilities for conducting
>opinion poll of the participants in the list once the revised version
>released; I guess he'll tell people about the mechanics of doing so in
>I hope we'll get this done soon!