Re: Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Harald wrote:
>
>In the discussion about whether to impose rules that may lead to 
Baptista 
>being excluded from posting for certain periods of time, I find 
responding 
>to Baptista relevant.

I agree on that, of course.


>
>>  Why can't there be two (or more) lists?  The uncensored list, which 
would
>>  be the "official" record, and a "filtered" list (or more than one), 
where
>>  everyone who uses that list agrees to the filter rules *by the very 
act
>>  of subscribing to the list*.
>
>We could. But I don't belive it would be right, because it would 
require 
>those of us who feel obliged to participate to follow the unfiltered 
list. 
>If they take the responsibility of "official" action, they have the 
duty of 
>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 
to 
>the list, no matter what its quality is; that's too harsh a punishment 
for 
>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 
post.

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 
>liability issues.

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 
an 
>opinion poll of the participants in the list once the revised version 
is 
>released; I guess he'll tell people about the mechanics of doing so in 
due 
>course.
>
>I hope we'll get this done soon!
>

Regards
Roberto