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

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

At 08:43 10.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>Now that the people who object to the unilateral imposition of the filter
>rules have left en mass, I wonder if there is any reasonable doubt as to
>how this second poll will come out? (I gather the first straw poll, taken
>before the rules were imposed in the absence of consensus, was
>inconclusive? )
>
>Is there any plan to attempt to get a more representative electorate?

The two things we have to decide before the vote (which should IMHO be a
vote, not a poll) are:

- Who are the electorate?
- How can they vote?

I can see no line of argument that would include "ga" list members but
exclude "ga-full" list members.


>PS. This message came to me from "ga-full" resulting in the duplicated
>topic header seen above.  This seems to have a number of unfortunate (and
>I suspect unanticipated) results:
>
>*it segregates comments by which list people read;
>
>*it makes each post a sort of political statement, and
>
>* (worst of all?) it makes reading a single thread in the correct order
>very difficult if it is composed of comments from readers of the two lists
>if your mail reader threads by subject as mine does.  Is there anything
>that can be done about this?  Perhaps the two lists could use the same
>[name] in the subject line, but have different footers appended to
>messages when forwarded ("This message came to you from the 'whatever'
>list.  To unsubscribe send a message to 'address'.)

This is a good idea.

                   Harald

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