Re: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

I second Bill's proposal there. An Information Admin. would be great.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "Alternate Chair" <patrick@quad.net.au>; "[ga-rules]"
<ga-rules@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-rules] Bounced Messages & Other List Administration


> I had suggested to someone a while back that with all the
> other stuff going on, reposting being done not only by the
> Chair or Alternate Chair and various others who see a
> thing that  they think others would like to see is a bit of
> a waste and duplication of effort. I often see stuff several
> times. That "mechanical" function is not a good way to
> spend the time of the C or Alt-C in any event. So it was
> my suggestion that a list have an official "reporter" or
> "journalist" or whatever; only that person would re-post,
> and those of us who think we found a goodie (that by
> chance had already been reposted and the person so
> finding had not noticed it) would send it to that "reporter,"
> and then the reporter could screen all of it and just repost
> each one only once.  (Or something like that; it's too early
> for me today already!) But it would get that journalist type
> involved in a working job, so to speak.  (Obviously, daily
> post limits should not apply to a journalist doing that job;
> that person's own observations, as parsed out below, would
> of course be subject.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 00:56 31.05.2001 +1000, Alternate Chair wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > Patrick,
> > 1) There are ways of reposting a message (usually called "Redirect" or
> > "resend") where the message appears to come from the original sender,
not
> > from you. You need the majordomo "approval password" to do this, of
course.
> >
> > 2) Unless the message is urgent and important, I think it is better to
> > advise the sender that it was bounced than to forward it. That way,
people
> > who want to be heard learn.
> >
> > 3) GA announcements should not be reposted, IMHO. Those who are on the
> > announce list get them, those who aren't may have a reason not to be.
> > If an announcement is of special importance to the GA, you should send a
> > message saying WHY it is important and an URL to the announcement
archive
> > entry.
> >
> > In short - I think you could reduce your own workload and the list
traffic
> > by doing less, and there would be no harm to the GA in doing so.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html