Angus Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> imo, we are getting way too many off topic threads on slug. I believe
> the quality of this list has dropped in the last year or so, and i
> believe it is from the large number of off topic threads.
yep
> RESTRICTED:
> (ie: allowed, but replies should be off list, unless they are
> particularly "worthy")
> non-linux (but nerdy anyway ;) discussion. this includes MS bashing.
> eg: "hey, i saw the railway indicator boards blue screen!"
this (above) should be in the "not allowed" category
sure it may be amusing, but the channel 7 dot thing is amusing,
it's still completely not related to linux.
Constant crapping on about M$ stuff on this list is probably the
main thing pissing me off. I am completely not interested in
M$ stuff (no matter how stupid the things they do).
> eg: "cool new gadget that doesn't run linux"
> [or should this be under "allowed" ?]
this is definitely ok (ie. "allowed")
(cos why doesn't it run linux? we need to know what manufacturers
to avoid or lobby etc)
> NOT ALLOWED:
> (not even a post with "[OT]" in the subject and asking for private
> replies. there are more appropriate lists for these)
>
> windows-only tech-support questions.
> eg: "how do i get MSOutlook to read PGP signed email?"
> eg: "Does anyone know what runs ITS_EJ.EXE?"
> [sorry howard]
big agree here! Maybe to also help discourage these questions,
include some info on other mailing lists more appropriate.
It's not much use just saying "more appropriate lists exist"
if people can't find them, they will ask their question anyway
reasoning that (a) it's worth a go, (b) I really need to solve
this problem, and (c) it'll only piss off a few people.
> anything classed as "spam"
>
> personal flames. (flames, particularly funny ones, are a part of email
> life and so should be allowed as part of a normal email
> discussion. anything that the recipient gets more than trivially upset
> over is not allowed.)
>
> HTML or "rich text" posts.
just bounce all attachments, whatever their type.
> irrelevant quoted text or long sigs. (be lenient, since this is
> largely personal opinion)
> [this needs to be mentioned, but probably not in this category]
"netiquette" says 4 lines is enough for a sig.
It's tough if you work for a company that adds one of stupid
legal disclaimer bullshit sigs on all emails (I'm tempted to
add here "use a private email account or find a better company
to work for" but that sounds a bit arrogant).
> PENALTIES/PROCEDURE:
>
> if someone is caught breaking these, send them a *private* message
> saying this is inappropriate and pointing them at wherever these
> guidelines can be read. don't be too harsh on a first offence ;)
>
> if they disagree with your interpretation of these guidelines,
> something should probably be mentioned on the list, so the point can
> be clarified (or adjusted to fit future list demographics).
>
> if someone repeatedly ignores these guidelines, complaints should be
> made to whomever the listmaster is, and the listmaster (after
> considering the list guidelines rationale) can block further posts
> from that address (or something).
> [or should complaints go to the list, so everyone knows whats happening?]
maybe repeat offenders (within a certain timeframe) should be put
on a list of people who can't post without manual approval?
Probably (a) a hassle for the list maintainers, and (b) pointless
anyway with free web email accounts etc.
Dave.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
