|
Just a technical distinction... No email that is sent and received can be guaranteed to originate at the supposed source or not be 'intercepted' and further distributed. List etiquette, while nice, holds no guarantees of confidentiality or anything else - I find it better to regard anything I send via email as public property - though I may choose not to interact with un-asked for responses to email. The only sure 'rules' for an email list come through moderated lists and then only insofar as the moderator blocks 'undesired' contributions and contributors... I am happy in a 'public' community not to forward 'personal' emails to other people - yet I have no problem forwarding links or relevant 'informational' public documents. (Ie info about conferences, seminars etc or links to interesting documents/articles). Niall -------- Original Message --------
Judy Redman wrote: > Clare writes: > >>Rob Bos wrote: >> >>>Ted Endacott's thoughts in Bandy are worth pondering. >> >>They might be, but didn't list members agree last year that, since the >>list is no longer archived publicly, passing on list posts to >>non-members without the writers' permissions is a no-no? > > We may have done (I am not doubting Clare, I just don't have any memory of > this conversation), but I wonder if there is actually any point to doing > this. The list is an unmoderated public list - anyone who finds their way > to the Synod website can subscribe to it. That's true. But it does mean that if list posts are misused, there's a specific list of addresses that can be presumed to be responsible. Plus we can be sure that only list members (and therefore hopefully people who by implication contract not to misuse the posts) have access to them. > (which I think is a good thing, spam-wise), so I think one needs to consider > that anything posted to the list is a public comment at least within the > UCA. If it's not something you're comfortable about having everyone in the > Uniting Church hear, then this list is probably not the place to post it. > This, of course, is very different to passing posts from the list on to > members of the media and other people outside the Uniting Church, for which > I would expect people to ask my permission. I think that's a pretty artificial distinction. Many people on the list aren't UCA members (myself included, possibly) and many UCA members aren't on the list. Standard list protocol is usually to ask permission, if only out of courtesy, before passing on a post to a non-member. After all, who's to say there might not be some personal issue unknown about between the list member and someone you pass it on to? The other factor that came up in the discussion on it last year, though, was that it's actually a legal requirement under the Privacy Act to get permission before quoting someone. > If we want to go the way of getting permission to pass any posts at all on, > that needs to be included in the welcome message that people get when they > subscribe and someone also needs to remind members periodically. Agreed completely, and there was some attempt to draw up a list protocol - what happened to that in the end, Stephen? Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] *************************************************** ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------ |
