[ga-full] Re: Re: [ga] truth in labelling

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I'm sorry but she did not TELL anyone what she was doing. To compound that
by hiding the fact that it happened is to falsify our history. That is
what i was complaining about.  The web site claims that the GA list was at
all prior times, (1) filtered, (2) according to "rules".  This doesn't fit
my understanding of the facts, and nothing said in this thread has changed
that understanding.  Rather, it seems clear that (1) the filtering started
at some definite time, and (2) it was one person's ad hoc decision making.

One need not agree as to whether these were wise choices in order to agree
as to the facts of what happened.  Is it not correct that for a time there
was no filtering?  And then there was?  And then there wasn't?  And now
there is again?  

If that is correct, then those facts are not reflected at
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html which inaccurately describes all the
historic archives as "with rules".  Thus falsely implying that the current
regime is a continuation of the original system under which the list was
set up.  This is not trivial.

I am more than willing to accept that the description on the page was
sloppy, not malicious.  But now that I have drawn the inaccuracy to the
lists' attention, it is incumbent on the party resonsible for this page ot
fix it.  (The page itself doesn't have mailto address for the maintainer,
so I cannot cc that person.)


On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> >It's all very well to take responsibility, but I don't define secret
> >decisions as "taking responsibility"; rather it is more like trying to
> >avoid it.
> 
> Obviously, I was not clear enough.
> There was no "secret decision" by some occult power.
> 
> In absence of somebody whose task would be to "take responsibility for
> the decisions", the decisions were taken by the technical staff, whose
> expertise is technical, but not "legal" or "political".
> 
> Were the wrong decisions taken? Maybe. But I would not feel to throw
> stones at Elisabeth (or other technical staff) for the lack of
> direction.
> 
> Now the situation has changed, and you have the target for the stones:
> it is me, and Harald. Please let Elisabeth and the other technical staff
>  do their technical work in peace.
> 

Then stop rubbing salt in the wound by putting up actively false
statements about the past.  


> >>
> >> Or maybe, if ever somebody will post a message of this type, it
> should
> >> be clearly indicated "off-topic" in the subject.
> >
> >I'm sorry- is management of the list and archives off topic all of a
> >sudden?  When did that happen?  Will I be filtered for being off topic?
> 
> >
> 
> Not at all.
> My proposal was to mark "off-topic" the few messages that were DNS-
> related, like the one from John Lewis (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga
> /Arc03/msg01227.html), to make them recognizable, and allow people to
> browse the archives without taking the risk of opening one of them ;>).
> 

This is a really bad idea.  And I know you know why I think that ;>


-- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--