Nice to hear from you on this open issue Randy (and Tom).
I think you pitched it cool and calm and level headed !
Excellent and just the way it should be.
Either way it turns out, I'll still be here if I may.
Letterboxing list sites on both sides of the pond have a historic
(histrionic ?) reputation for anything but calmness
welcome voice of reason and decency.
Thanks
Graham Howard
The Moorland Wizard
letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com writes:
>Glad to hear from you on this, Randy. I think you gave a very clear
>account
>of the issue, showing willingness to go with a clear majority feeling if
>that existed, but giving an excellent reason to keep it open.
>
>Tom
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Randy Hall"
>To:
>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 8:33 AM
>Subject: [LbNA] list options
>
>
>>
>> Just a quick (though long) note on the "list options"
>> thread ... for those who asked ... (and prolly more
>> than anyone wanted ... :-))
>>
>> FWIW, I happen to agree with Graham in regards
>> to these issues (i.e., openness -- allow
>> attachments and allow non-members to post).
>> I also get the sense from reading some of the
>> posts that a preponderance of the opinion expressed
>> is along these lines as well. The idea of the
>> list is to be as loose and open as reasonable
>> and practical, while keeping a sense of community.
>> List policy is decided, ideally, by consensus (but
>> more on that later) -- my opinion should not be
>> that important for shaping list policy.
>>
>> If the issue is simply spam (on the member/non-member
>> issue), then I would point out that the volume of
>> discussion of the issue possibly exceeded the
>> volume of the spam :-)
>>
>> These 2 issues have been coming up since the
>> beginning of time in many internet communities
>> over the years (including this one). I wager
>> they will come up one or two more times on this
>> list by next spring. The problem with these
>> issues is that people are divided on them, and
>> consensus is not possible to reach (or at least I
>> have never seen it reached on a large list). I
>> will offer the opinion that attempting to reach
>> a consensus on these issues on this list is a
>> waste of time, but people are free to try ...
>>
>> What then, is the best approach to handling a
>> such issues? Most lists I am on handle them
>> by fiat of the list managers, and the issues usually
>> only come up when the options are set to "open"
>> (because people respond to "active bother" caused
>> by the openness, but don't respond to the "passive
>> bother", if you will, brought about by "closed"
>> options (hopefully people get this point without
>> further elaboration ...). Furthermore, The
>> situation is slightly different here because the
>> content itself on this list can be part of the game,
>> rather than just noise as it is on most lists.
>>
>> Anyway, no matter how you set these options, a
>> significant fraction of the list will want them
>> the other way. It is that way now (possibly), and
>> will be that way if we change them. It turns out
>> that, logically anyway, if you leave the list options
>> "open", then people can take steps personally to
>> "close" them on their own systems (by using mail
>> filters, spam filters, read on the web, virus scanners,
>> operating systems and mail programs that are better
>> designed than others, etc) -- yet if you set the
>> options to "closed", people cannot do much personally
>> if they like them "open".
>>
>> So, as a personal philosophy, I tend toward
>> decentralised decision making by individuals rather
>> than centralised decision making for all.
>>
>> Now, this assumes that the issue is fairly evenly
>> split. If a poll were to show a huge majority (and
>> don't ask me what huge is because I'm not sure), then
>> I would honor that. For example, if only 2 people
>> wanted the options open, and everyone else wanted them
>> closed, then I would close them. If it were about
>> 51-49%, I most likely would not make a decision that
>> would leave 49% of the list in a situation where
>> there was nothing personally that could be done. (Feel
>> free to explore further or start a poll, or explore what
>> majority would be appropriate ...)
>>
>> Just MHO ... :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>> List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>>
>>
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>
>
>To unsubscribe: mailto:letterbox-usa-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>List info, archives, etc: http://www.letterboxing.org/list.html
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>