[CLUE-Admin] Proposed language for email lists . . . please comment

[Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier]

On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 23:12, David Anselmi wrote:
> El Presidente de CLUE wrote:
> [...]
> > Dave,
> > 
> > I suppose we could do nothing, but I thought Zonker made a good point when he 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > "We can't just assume there's an unspoken policy that everyone will absorb 
> > through some kind of netiquette osmosis."
> > 
> > So, maybe I should have asked:
> > 
> > 1)  Does everyone think we need a policy?
> > 2)  If yes, then what should it be?
> 
> I think our de facto policy works fine.  Note that no one has proposed 
> anything that has bearing on Rick's post.  Even with more explicit 
> policies (and many only cover posts to the list, which Rick didn't do), 
> there will still be people who break the rules (intentionally or not). 
> They will be dealt with and life will go on, as happened this time.  So 
> the discussion about policy changes needs to happen separate from 
> everyone's feelings about Rick and spam.

That's not entirely true: what happened was Rick took names off the
list. One of the proposals is that we specifically state that harvesting
off the list of members is a no-no. 

> If we are going to change policies, it should be to shape the lists to 
> be a better place.  What do we need to change about our community?  Is 
> there a recurring misunderstanding that a policy could prevent?

I don't think it's "changing" policies so much as enumerating what we
think everyone should already know. 

> We need to be especially careful with off-list behavior.  Besides being 
> something difficult to enforce, we don't necessarily want to get in the 
> middle too much.  Suppose Rick had sent his message to one person and 
> that person complains to the list?  Rick says he thought the person was 
> interested.  The person demands Rick's removal for policy violation. 
> What to do?  (Though policy needs to be clear, there needs to be some 
> discretion built into enforcement.)

I agree here: There should be discretion. I know I don't think that Rick
should be bounced off the list for this incident, so I'd hate to see an
absolute rule that calls for a ban for any infraction. 

> I guess I disagree with Zonker.  There is an unspoken policy and people 
> absorb it.  We can't assume that they will *if* we want or need to 
> enforce the policy more rigorously.  Then it has to be explicit. 
> Perhaps there are other reasons to have more policies but I haven't 
> heard them.

As a courtesy to list members, I think it's only fair to spell out the
big no-no's that will get people worked up. 

Now that I think about it - I don't think we even have a policy that
says "don't crosspost" and that does happen from time to time. People
hate it, and people who should know better do it -- sending the same
message to both lists to make sure that they're "heard." (I'm not
referring to administrative-type announcements sent to both lists...) 

As soon as someone does cross-post, people complain about it -- but
there's no policy that says "don't do this." It's arguable that we'll
get members who aren't overly familiar with netiquette and I think it's
only fair to give them an idea what's expected. 

If nothing else, maybe a link to a good "netiquette" site when they
subscribe that directs them to read it and practice good netiquette. 

Take care,

Zonker
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
jzb at dissociatedpress.net
Aim: zonkerjoe
http://www.dissociatedpress.net