On 17-Jun-08, at 7:29 PM, Raj Mathur wrote: > 1. I never threatened to ``instruct'' the list admin to moderate > anyone. > I said I'd request him, and I stand by that -- if I see anyone > peddling > proprietary stuff here I will definitely ask the admin to moderate > that > person, as I'm sure many others will too.
this is a question of attitude. There are two views on how to 'teach' a newbie to 'behave'. The paternalistic view is that that these people need to be put in some sort of quarantine and only allowed out when they learn to behave. The other view depends on peer pressure, list members put pressure on the newbie and he may or may not conform. Take top posting. The members of different lists have different standards here. In some lists, members jump on all top posters and top posting goes down. Other lists have a more tolerant view where it is more or less left to the poster. The paternalistic people would put the offenders in quarantine till they either leave or post properly. I personally find top posting most irritating, and, when I have the energy, flame top posters. But I would certainly not recommend 'quarantining' or 'moderating' such people. As for request != instruct, given your position in the Indian FOSS movement, it is difficult to see anyone refusing a 'request' from you. > > 2. Nowhere was it said or implied that this was a moderated list. > It's > not. It never will be, if I have any say in the matter at all. > > For the benefit of those like you who don't understand the Internet > and > mailing lists: you can have an unmoderated list and still place one > specific person on moderation for violation of the list etiquette. > That does NOT make the whole list moderated. being a moderated list does not imply that all members are moderated - it only means that moderation is an option, and that option can be used to threaten/coerce people. Which is what happens here. I would like the admins to clarify that moderation is *not* and option. Spammers and those who act against the list principles should be kicked off the list - others, however obnoxious or irritating they may be, have to be tolerated. > >>> I personally have no issues with discussion on any FOSS product or >>> activity on this list, but it's up to the list managers and ILUGD >>> office-bearers to define the scope within which we operate here :) >> >> last time we were told that ILUGD office-bearers were office bearers >> for ILUGD and not for this list. Or rather this list and ilugd are >> two separate entities. Has this changed? > > Not as far as I know, since this list has no office bearers at all. I think you have missed my point here. ILUGD is one of the few LUGs where there is a distinction between a list member and a ILUGD member. For example, I am a member of this mailing list, but not a member of ILUGD. This distinction has been made during the discussion last year on whether ILUGD should tie up with LFY for freed/freedel. This is not so for other LUGs except PLUG. So the people who define the scope within which the list operates are *not* the office bearers of ILUGD. Rather it is the members of the list - not one man one vote - but the listadmins should feel the pulse of the members and implement accordingly. Of course, if moderation is an option, then the moderaters can decide and implement. It wont affect me for I will be long gone. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate, NRC-FOSS [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/ _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected] http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
