Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

I find your note puzzling.  In a few minutes you already did a better job
than what's up there-then say what's up there  can't reasonably be
improved on.  Then you call it "exactly" accurate!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:00:20PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > The page describes as "GA with rules" all traffic on the GA list from its
> > inception.  My understanding is that during that period, the actual series
> > of events is -- more or less -- something like this.  I don't know the
> > exact dates.
> > 
> > Period 1: no filtering at all
> 
> A fairly short period of time -- it is clear that Jeff Williams was 
> filtered out partway through the first archive.  So filtering applies 
> to every archive.
> 

I am perfectly content to have the description of an archive note that at
some defined point during it the rules changed.  Or even semi-defined.

> > Period 2: ad hoc secret filtering without any "rules" written down
> > anywhere
> > Period 3: no filtering while rule-set debated
> > Period 4: current rule-set
> > 
> > Whatever the exact state of affairs, as I understand matters it is not the
> > case that there were filtering "rules" at all relevant times from July 3,
> > 1999.  Indeed, there were no "rules" until the current period.  
> 
> Filtering has been in place through at least part of the period for 
> every one of those archives.  We can quibble over the meaning of the 
> term "rules" -- certainly one possible use of the term is as a synonym 
> for "filters", but that really is a quibble.  
> 

Sounds reasonable here....so long as the change is acknowledged...

> > It seems to me uncontroversially good to accurately describe historical
> > events.  If my description above is not right, I'd be happy to have the
> > person/people who know put in the correct one -- with the relevant dates.
> > 
> > I don't think this is a very difficult work item.
> 
> Modulo the quibble, the description is completely accurate as it is --

...but does not sound reasonable here.

> there have been filters applied to every one of the archives except the
> one explicitly notated as having "no rules".
> 

One point lost is that the status quo ante was no rules.  This is an
important historical point.

The other point lost is that whatever you wish to call the filtering which
happened before the current period, it was not using the same ruleset as
is currently used.  That point, to put it most charitably, is elided in
the current web page.

I don't find either of these trivial, and it seems relevant to any history
of the DNSO.

> In my opinion "the quibble" is petty beyond redemption -- there are 
> several other places where the English isn't perfectly idiomatic, and 
> given that there are lots of non-native english speakers who look at 
> the site, that seems only fair.
> 

Huh?  This is an *easy* fix.

> Finding the exact dates for when the various filters have been applied
> is probably impossible.
> 

I suspect the people who did it could pinpoint it, at least to within a
week, if they wanted it.

> >  I have mentioned it
> > before on this list, and I can't see why fixing it should take more than
> > 10 minutes.
> 
> It ain't broken.  It is exactly accurate.
> 
> 

"Exactly"?  Having yourself described how this is not the case, I find
this remark utterly Orwellian.

-- 

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.<--

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