Alan Burlison wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> The problem with auto-reject/auto-discard is two fold:
>>
>> 1) it makes it really painful to involve those groups in discussions
>> 2) it allows the list to basically run "unmanaged", to the point that
>> I think driver-discuss@ probably is totally abandoned ...
>
> Yes, agreed, but those settings are the responsibility of the list
> owner, so they need to be contacted to change them.
>
>> What can be done for lists where the list "owner" is not actually
>> managing the list anymore? I've offered to moderate driver-discuss@
>> myself, several times. I've sent mail to the individuals that I
>> *think* are responsible for it. One of them has certainly left the
>> community (Alan DuBoff) -- the other I'm not sure is doing anything.
>
> I think that a moribund mailing list is probably a good indicator of a
> moribund community. The OGB can shut down such groups, as detailed in
> section 7.12 of the constitution. If you think the community has
> died, I suggest the best course of action is to ask the OGB to
> investigate.
You're not listening. The *community* is not moribund. The
*administration* of the list, however, is. There is still a lot of
traffic on the list. I've even volunteered to take over list
administration. But nobody is listening.
>
>> As I think I've indicated already, the auto-reject policy is IMO a
>> crutch which ultimately allows lists to fall into an "unadministered"
>> state.
>
> And I've already indicated there is no such 'policy', the mailing list
> settings are the responsibility of the list owner, not the OGB or the
> website community. The last time centralised list management was
> mooted it was roundly rejected by the community. The OSO communities
> need to decide either to manage their lists properly or to ask for the
> task to be done centrally, but they can't have it both ways.
And I'm saying that there *ought* to be a policy. Right now the
complete lack of any handling whatsoever results in an unacceptable
situation IMO, where an active list, with folks willing to volunteer,
can't get administration because one person has either left the
community is disinterested in properly moderating the discussions.
>
>>>> IMO, the Board, and the members of the website community, have been
>>>> far to cavalier about the handling of these lists. I think these
>>>> mailing lists are even more important than the actual web pages --
>>>> very little actual collaboration happens on the web pages (at least
>>>> in the communities for which I'm a member) -- but a great deal does
>>>> happen in e-mail.
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear what you mean by 'cavalier', could you explain
>>> please?
>
> I still don't understand what you meant by this, could you clarify
> please?
You're handling of this, which is essentially passing the buck, when
there is nobody to receive the pass, is cavalier -- it shows lack of any
actual concern about the problem.
- Garrett
