Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:42:02 -0700
From: JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
These are good questions but the answers depend greatly on the list
itself. What is vital for one list can be inappropriate for another.
A) How important is it that a "software user's list" accept and distribute
all posts (including posts from non-sub$cribers) that are remotely
"on-topic" and about the software in question?
Depends on the kind of list you want to run. Is it a discussion list or an
information sharing list? The former allows more posts than the latter.
And why are nonsubs wanting to post? If their reasons are legit, you will
be more likely to want their posts.
I run health lists. My main one, Immune, allows and even encourages posts
from nonsubs. Some people have a specific question but don't have the time
or inclination to join the list. Others are activists in the areas the
list covers and they (with my okay) cc the list on posts describing their
activities.
Friday is ad day on my list but only subs are allowed to post ads (and
there are various restrictions). I also would not want a nonsub to become
involved in a protracted discussion without joining. OTOH, I don't always
know who is a sub and who isn't. The list is moderated and all posts come
to me for approval. We get the occasional crossposted thread (there is one
list we work closely with) so it can get confusing.
Another list I run is a close discussion/support group and I would not
allow nonsub posts unless it was from a previous sub who was posting an
update on how they are. If I want certain info to go to that group, I
forward it under my name, with appropriate credits.
B) Is it reasonable to expect/require the software's users sub$cribe to
the list and to read a FAQ before accepting their posts?
Reasonable? yes. It's also reasonable to expect (or even require) that all
list members are respectful to each other and avoid personal attacks. But
if you aren't prepared for the fact that it won't happen all the time,
you'll be in for a long haul.
C) Is it reasonable to expect the admins to answer *some* of the
non-member posts outright, rather than forwarding the post to the list (to
be distributed to several hundred sub$cribers, and then not answered, and
then be asked again)?
Depends on the list. I get tons of personal mail asking questions. I
sometimes answer them, I sometimes answer them partially, and I sometimes
don't answer them and ask people to post them on the list. If the question
is posted others can benefit from not only my answer but other people's.
It saves me time because sometimes I don't have to answer at all and even
if I do, I don't have to answer it as often if it's posted. Depends on
your goals and on the question. "Where can I download xyz software?" is
probably a question you want to avoid people posting because it's in the
FAQ (the FAQ is posted regularly to the list, I assume?).
I believe a simple solution is for the admin to
reject the post with an reply to the sender on why it's inappropriate, or
supplying the FAQ url where the answer lies, or just answering the question
("no, you can't do that") when this can be done with a minimum of effort.
If it works for you and your list, sure.
p.s. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that I had to munge sub$criber (a
total of 15 times) to get this post sent on to a list where the main topic
of discussion is mailing list management and thus sub$criber is a common
word?
This drives me crazy too. But I'm not Michael and I don't know what the
noise to signal ratio on this is.
Cyndi
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman
something wrong with the universe." (ST:TNG) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.tikvah.com/
_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/
