Re: [ga] Re: Opening a Can of Soup
This is why we need you as the chair of one of the sub-lists, please accept my
nomination of you as chair of the ga-rules. This is a very important postion that
will give credibility to the GA, we need a man like you who can build alliances
and yet remain independent and guide productivity and freedom at the same time.
"William S. Lovell" wrote:
> So here's the proof of your entire thesis. A while back I set out to
> join all the lists and get into the thick of things. I posted something
> to ga-roots and next thing you know I see it up there as having been
> posted on my behalf -- me being a "non-member." "What is this?"
> I sez to myself. It seems that while I had got all the lists nicely into my
> oh-so-organized directory, in doing the actual joining I had skipped over
> ga-roots. Duh. Some of us just can't open a can of soup.
> (And yes, I did mean, "How come it's in ga and not in ga-roots.")
> Bill Lovell
> Alternate Chair wrote:
> > Hi Bill
> > > Why isn't all this, and others like it, in ga-roots?
> > > And what on earth is a "owner-ga-full?"
> > Well it's like this.
> > The more intelligence, degrees and other qualifications a person has the
> > less ability they have in opening a can of soup. Add to that that anybody
> > dealing with alternate roots is an independent, ornery person who doesn't
> > want to follow simple guidelines like "open can at other end" and you have a
> > big mess.
> > My golden rule is that "everybody" must co-operate to make a mailing list
> > succeed but just "one" person can wreck those efforts. Let me work on that:
> > A mailing list *might* succeed if everybody co-operates.
> > But it is certain to fail if just one person doesn't.
> > Or something along those lines.
> > BTW My answer to much of your question is below. The word "owner" is a list
> > management term used in bounced messages. I must have reposted a bounced
> > message of something of that nature and released that address *into the
> > wild* for one list member to get confused by it.
> > I could ask the DNSO Secretariat to bounce posts of people who use that term
> > but that would certainly wreck something somewhere else e.g. some proper
> > posting to that address.
> > So I am trying a bit of user training and education.
> > <sigh>
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alternate Chair <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > To: [ga-rules] <email@example.com>
> > Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 00:56:40 +1000
> > Subject: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration
> > All
> > The GA-ROOTS list has received more postings that any of the other special
> > purpose lists. As well the debate has been vigorous and informed. Other
> > lists are starting to pick up and become relevant.
> > Unfortunately one or two people have posted material relating to ROOTS
> > elsewhere. One person, for example, has posted to firstname.lastname@example.org
> > instead of email@example.com. I have received this mail along with bounced
> > posts such as submissions by non-members.
> > I have reposted three non-member submissions. I thought some were
> > subscribed and the cause for the error needs to be investigated. As far as
> > I can tell, there is no set procedure and I could check their subscriptions
> > or write to them privately or onlist. Any corrective action takes time and
> > effort. It is also useful to post ICANN Announcements or even posts from
> > other lists.
> > There are therefore three types of postings I might make (1) my own views on
> > a subject of interest (2) reposts and corrections (3) GA announcements.
> > Trying to perform these tasks could easily lead me to exceed my personal
> > daily posting limit. This would be a valid but unworthy cause for concern.
> > Of course, I could easily just ignore mis-postings, filter bounced messages
> > and not re-post ICANN Announcements or other relevant emails. I see that as
> > bowing to form rather than substance. A better solution is to refer
> > complaints of excess postings to the List Monitors who can make an impartial
> > assessment. Pity that this just adds to their already large burden.
> > Another alternative is to make arrangements to pass this work to the DNSO
> > Secretariat.
> > Clearly, list administration is a necessary function. Personally, I would
> > prefer to spend more time on substantive issues relating to ICANN policy.
> > In fact, it is easy to forget that even intelligent people disagree or just
> > get things wrong.
> > I'd therefore ask everyone to assist with the list housekeeping by (a)
> > making sure you are subscribed before posting (b) using the right "to" and
> > "from" addresses and (c) posting to the most relevant mailing list. I would
> > particularly suggest that you do not simply blindly follow the previous
> > person -- it should be easy to tell ROOTS from RULES etc.
> > I'd appreciate any constructive comments. Should this be considered an
> > official post.
> > And if so, should it be excluded from my daily limit of five posts?
> > Thank you for your time
> > Patrick Corliss
> > Alternate Chair
> Bill Lovell
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html