[ga-full] Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules

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

Hi, Ellen.

Sorry to reply this late, but your message has been buried in hundreds 
of private messages by Joe Baptista, and I did not read it until some 
cleanup has been done.

Please see my comments in the text. 


>Hi, Roberto:
>
>Thank you for copying me on your note to Karl.  It is clear that you 
feel
>some anguish at the recent events with the GA mailing list rules and 
our
>subsequent unsubscriptions.
>


Valuable people, whatever their opinion on the issues, is a scarce 
resource these days.
I hate to see you (Ellen), Karl, and Dan go due to the application of 
monitoring rules, as much as I hated to see other people fleeing the 
list in the past due to the lack of monitoring rules.

My only hope is that we can bring this matter to a vote, and that either
 group will accept the result, and live with the situation.


>> Because I believe, and here comes the
>>disagreement, that at a certain point you have to draw the line 
between
>>the expression of alternative positions on issues at hand, and
>>expression of nothing
>
>Taken to its extremes, a proposal that holds at its core a prohibition
>against posting an "expression of nothing" might disallow the posting 
of a
>joke, of ISOC minutes, of a new book on the market that is only
>tangentially related to the subject at hand, of illness in the family 
that
>prevents timely response, or a rant of an opposing point of view.  I
>believe you can make rules as to behavior (no crossposting, no email
>spoofing) but rules as to expression are a slippery slope that can 
slide
>subtly into censorship.  Here's a clue:  if it is difficult to define 
the
>criteria of what constitutes an "expression of nothing", then you 
cannot
>make such rules.
>


What I was trying to say is that nothing that could have some influence 
on the scope of the list has been "censored". But, of course, if you 
look at things from the strict "question of principle", you are right.

>Two lists just provide a cludgely workaround. It's difficult to see 
what
>that accomplishes, except to rebut complaints of censorship, never mind

>that the full list is rea-only.
>
>You fail to address why individual filters aren't sufficient to manage 
the
>concern about "expression of nothing".   You could, for example, impose
 a
>five message per day rule.  That would raise hackles from some, but it
>wouldn't be enough reason to unsubscribe from a list because it would 
apply
>to all of us equally and objectively.
>
>You could also impose rules that bounce any crossposted messages and 
that
>unsubscribe people who have spoofed mailbox addresses.  That is a
>legitimate approach to a clear breaches of netiquette.  Multiple 
identities
>is more difficult to identify and thus, to work into your mailing list
>rules.  I know of a lady who uses pseudo names on the Internet because 
she
>wants to keep her identity secret from a known harasser.  Another who 
is
>working on litigation for a client and doesn't want the defendant to 
pursue
>her.
>
>>Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the 
GA
>>is to quit the boat now?
>
>Do you really think that the best way to increase the power of the GA 
is to
>muzzle free expression? That is, in essence, what your rules have
>accomplished.


If "free expression" is the proposal of different ideas and different 
POV on the issues at hand, the answer is "no".
If "free expression" is libel and slander, than, "yes", I believe that 
the reduction thereof will greatly increase the power of the GA.

>
>If the GA group remained on task, people would ignore the banter of 
those
>who do not contribute to informative discussion.  Listmembers are free 
to
>ignore those who contribute nothing and to start new threads at any 
time.
>I believe you will find that your new mailing list rules will not 
resolve
>the very concerns that inspired them.  I hope that I am wrong, but I 
have
>been on lists where disruptors and empty contributions are ignored or
>shunned, and the substantive debate proceeds without any 
acknowledgement of
>their existence,
>


True, but again only in theory, unfortunately.

I am purposedly using a free-service E-Mail account for the messages 
associated to this list. This is not uncommon, from what I see from the 
addresses of the subscribers.
I access this E-Mail account strictly via Internet. This is less common 
in the industrialized world, but is the standard in the reality of the 
less developed (telecom-wise) areas, where people browse their E-Mail 
from Internet-Cafes.

Under these circumstances (I am talking about the Internet Cafe), 
private filtering is difficult, if not impossible, while the choice of 
subscribing to a monitored rather than an unmonitored list is possible.
Under these circumstances, the simple visualization of the inbox list 
takes minutes, not to speak about action on a single message.

I owe the people that are operating under these conditions priority in 
my considerations over the matter of principle of the subscription to 
one or the other list.
I am only asking three months time before issuing the final judgement, 
that I will accept whatever it is.

Regards, and thanks.
Roberto