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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:34 04.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>The fact that censorship was for a period of time applied arbitrarily and
>secretly by the list management without authorization or disclosure of the
>fact of censorship or the criteria applied hardly constitutes a reasonable
>baseline. The appropriate baseline is before those arbitary, secret, and
>in my opinion unfortunate actions began.

we have a disagreement here..... I've not responded to the rest of the 
message, because the fundamental disagreement is here.

>I propose that as a (partial) corrective, the list management draft and
>post a *short* proposed text that would be posted to the filtered and
>unfiltered lists weekly describing the two feeds and explaining to the
>mailing-list-challenged how one tells which of them one is receiving, and
>how one switches from one to the other.  At least this will ameliorate the
>notice problem, especially for newcomers.  (Which is my biggest worry.)
>The text might also be sent automatically to new subscribers to either
>list.  Does that sound reasonable?

Very reasonable.
I'd have it posted monthly, not weekly, though - together with the current 
"state of the lists" message. Also part of the subscribe info.
I'll make sure something is worked out.

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 08:52 04.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > >Will existing subscribers be automatically transferred to one of the 
> lists?
> > >
> > >If so, I hope it's the full one, which preserves the status quo.  Taking a
> > >limited feed should require action on the subscriber's part.  Imposing
> > >this on people without even asking them is heavy-duty authoritarianism,
> > >and would not be conducive to peace and goodwill.
> >
> > Sorry to lose your goodwill, Michael - as discussed in the rules, the
> > status quo + any later additions are applied to the existing list.
>
>There were objections to this.  They appear to have been ignored.  That is
>a pity.

Never ignored - but they lost out in the pro et contra.

                        Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no