-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Was "Re: (clug-talk) Re: Garth Meisel"
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 11:23 am, you wrote: I think some clarification is necessary on my part. A few people have emailed me with some concerns. I have no intention of closing up the mailing list (even if I had the power to do so, which I don't). As we are without a Moderator, this would be the most obvious change I would like to see. And I'm not even talking a full-time moderator. It has been suggested that we have several anonymous moderators. The position would rotate from week to week or month to month. We could determine a time period later. In this situation the moderator position has the power, not a specific person. As long as the moderator adhered to guidelines this should not be a big deal. The advantages to the above idea are: it's not a Herculean task for one person; people don't get their noses out of joint because they feel a specific moderator has it in for them; having some moderation is a good thing. I believe that for the most-part the moderator will have nothing to do. We are a pretty self-disciplined group. I have nothing against friendly jabs but when people come out and bash someone else for whatever reason, things can and do get ugly. It becomes a lot of noise to quote Aaron. I would think that this duty could and should fall on the current Executive. That all the Executive have the power to ban someone who has shown themselves to be contrary to the rules of the mailing list and have the mechanism to do so (access to the server). It could also fall on a select group of active members. This is one of the things I think the Executive should sit down and discuss. I also think that we should take another look at topics. I don't think there would be any harm in starting a few more topics and see how it goes. If the particular list or lists has little traffic, then the experiment failed. It's another choice. I don't know what the answer is. There appears to be more in favour of status quo, but there are enough people interested in the possibility to warrant giving it a go. I hope that clears the air up a bit. I am not shooting towards CLUG's mailing list closing it's doors. I don't want to make it any more difficult for people to sign up. I was just suggesting that we need to talk about options. Jarrod > I'm with Aaron on this one. > > Frank > > Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > >i don't think such a thing will really be necessary. we're talking common > >sense and respect for the commons. i'd like to see CLUG remain as open and > >semi-formal as possible since i think that does the most to promoting > > growth and a spirit reflective of the group itself (whatever that may > > be). > > > >the worst thing that can happen to an open community is for it to start > >shutting its doors just because we have to deal with the occasional > > odd-ball. we can (and should) be stronger than that. > > > > > >this happens in all communities from time to time. =/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBPl0U5gCQFPa+bt49AQKEUgP/SvnIJqCE0s6upvKIAa4EZ4NxEoxm9UcV Jcr7WyJBxP0lxM/xpIhqN9PD82XPKZA9NJCEqhc5sR9yyxlkxZAZoDTDD0RGYZQX cAzlPnv2K5vwHX4kDMEH1KMh/r6eLqFBs0YLdb7R8jWKDzMv9s4W2bXF4IOpTsy5 Jk03hNOE9Wg= =feVH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
