RE: [ga] List Monitors

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of Digitel - Ken Stubbs
|> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 10:11 PM
|> To: jandl@jandl.com; Danny Younger
|> Cc: General assembly list
|> Subject: Re: [ga] List Monitors
|>
|>
|> i would agree 100% here with leah's post.
|>
|> this list is in the process of spinning off into oblivion
|> and losing any creditability & relevence

Although I agree with some aspects of Leah's post I totally discount
the following statement by Ken Stubbs.

Creditability is established by developing sound procedures and
process.  Also the work submissions that are developed, if they are
substantial and well documented.  The GA has been working on all these
and continues to do so.  In any large group attempting to communicate
there will be some that cause others discomfort.  The establishment of
procedures and processes to deal with such discomforts is never
trivial or a waste of time.

Nor should the postings of a few ever disrupt the major business of
any mailing list.  If such does occur, it is the fault of the list
rules and the participants.  As has often been pointed out, all
participants must decide the level of commitment and the number of
posts they read, to do so involves, in the majority of cases,
dismissing posts from participants that have shown a propensity to
make unsubstantial postings.

Personally I read all posts to the GA and most other lists I am on.  I
have developed my own systems for handling large volumes of mail.  I
do not respond to all posts and only offer new topics when I feel I
have something substantial or worthwhile to add or when I feel the
need to gain additional information.

I don't actually agree with posting limits but can appreciate others
feel more comfortable under such an umbrella.

I would suggest the following to any working group looking at the
mailing list rules:

* I have been lead to understand that there is a no cross-posting rule
in operation on the GA ML, perhaps CC and BCC lists should be
considered cross posting also.  Personally I object to getting
multiple copies of mail generated from the GA due to people using the
Reply All feature of their mail client or adding additional duplicate
recipients for their own purposes.

* Perhaps the list decorum rule could be adjusted to reflect the level
of discomfort felt by the list members.  Instead of a List Monitor
making a subjective judgement on the suitability of any postings, it
may be more objective to set the penalties on the number of complaints
made respecting certain posts or posters.  By this I would suggest
invoking penalties if the number of unique complaints sent to abuse
from list members reaches certain percentages.  For instance, if only
one to three abuse complaints are sent in, a warning only is sent.  If
5-10% of list participants send in a complaint, the offender is
suspended for two weeks and so on.  This would be an attempt to apply
an objective measurement to not the contents of the post complained
about, but the impact on the mailing list.

As I feel the urge to share ideas I will post them as appropriate.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

PS... See Ken, even this post contains some constructive elements and
is an attempt to improve the credibility and relevance of the GA :).

BTW... I would like to move that any working group formed to explore
improving the GA list rules, does so with the view that any submission
that emerges may be shared with the DNSO for dissemination to all
interested parties in an attempt to build better mechanisms for the
work of all.

--
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