Okay, all, I very much appreciate your feedback on this. Based on these opinions, I will respond to the person that we would not like to set a precedent for editing our archived communications and that we will be adding wording about the "public-ness" of our lists to the appropriate places.
Thanks!! Chris ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Galen Charlton" <[email protected]> > To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 10:09:16 AM > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Open-ILS email list archives - an unusual > request > Hi, > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 9:22 AM, Sharp, Chris wrote: > > 1) My first concern is whether it should be obvious that the > > Open-ILS lists are "public", that that it's obvious what "public" > > means. In our case it means that whatever you send to our lists is > > received by all list subscribers and is archived on our web server, > > then propagated to other sites like mail-archive.com and > > markmail.org, which are in turn searchable via Google, Yahoo, Bing, > > etc. This is not explicitly said anywhere on our web site, on the > > subscription page(s), or in the welcome messages sent to new > > subscribers. The closest I can find is on the Mailing List page at > > http://evergreen-ils.org/listserv.php where it says "There are five > > public mailing lists for people interested in Evergreen open source > > library software." I have no idea whether even this verbiage was > > present when this person subscribed given the organic nature of our > > site. I intend to add this sort of wording to the appropriate places > > in hopes of preventing future confusion of this sort. I welcome > > everyone's input about this, including wording suggestions. > > We can certainly add more text to the welcome message and the signup > page to emphasize that the mailing lists are public, can be archived > on multiple websites, and can show up on web searches. E.g., > > "The Evergreen mailing lists are public and publicly archived. Posts > to the lists can show up on external mailing lists archives such as > http://mail-archive.com as well as general search engines such as > Google." > > We could also link directly to the mailing lists archives from > http://evergreen-ils.org/listserver.php to make it more clear. > > And, to state the obvious, public mailing lists is one of the things > that distinguish the open source ILS communities from some of their > proprietary kin -- you don't need to sign a contract to join the > user's community. > > > 2) Secondly, unless there are other cases like this where email list > > postings have been manually removed (and I'm not aware of any), we > > currently have a complete archive of all the communications so far > > in the Evergreen-ILS project and I am extremely wary of editing the > > archives, for any reason. That said, the subjective value of this > > particular thread is probably not useful to our history and > > constitutes what is known as "administrivia", something that the > > Mailman program itself tries to catch before it sends to the full > > list since it has more to do with list administration than useful > > content. More importantly than this particular case, I'm concerned > > about where we draw the line on this. What if I decided to leave the > > Evergreen community and would like all of my posts removed? I would > > assume that I'm stuck with having them archived for perpetuity. I > > don't want to set a precedent for micro-managing our email (or chat) > > archives. > > > > So, do I (we) approve the deletion of the thread in question, > > possibly corrupting a complete archive of Evergreen's email history, > > but respecting this privacy concern? Or do I (we) apologetically say > > that we want to keep a complete archive of list emails and will do > > our best in the future to communicate better about the "public" > > nature of our lists? > > Well, regardless of what we do, we can make no guarantee to the > individual concerned that removing the message from our archive will > cause it to be removed from other archives or web search engines. > > My preference is that we adopt a policy of leaving the archives alone > except in really exceptional cases. Certainly I'd see no value in > letting somebody repudiate a long posting history; where the line gets > fuzzier is in the case of one-offs. As you describe the request you > received, I can't say that I understand why it is such a big deal for > that person. On the other hand, I can envision scenarios where it > might matter, having worked with librarians who were loath to > prematurely reveal that they were considering or implementing > Evergreen. I'd say that if somebody *promptly* requests a clawback of > a post made in error and can demonstrate to one of the list admins > that leaving the post in the archives would result in actual harm to > the poster, that should be considered. In the current situation of > somebody waiting over a year to make this request, I don't think so. > > Regards, > > Galen > -- > Galen Charlton > VP, Data Services > Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source > email: [email protected] > direct: +1 352-215-7548 > skype: gmcharlt > web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ -- Chris Sharp PINES Program Manager Georgia Public Library Service 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (404) 235-7147 [email protected] http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
