[Beowulf] Admin action request
andrew.holway at gmail.com
Mon Nov 25 12:53:34 PST 2013
Its been awfully quiet around here since Vincent Diepeveen was kicked....
On 25 November 2013 20:25, Prentice Bisbal <prentice.bisbal at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 02:41 PM, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
>> On 11/22/13 16:15, Joe Landman wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2013 02:00 PM, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
>>>> I think "no support" may be a bit overreaching, but nevertheless, I
>>> I couldn't find a person I spoke to about this from the list in support
>>> of this persons actions. Everyone I spoke with about this was quite
>>> negative. No support is an accurate reflection.
>> Not having found support from your contacts in a list with hundreds, if
>> not thousands, of people on it doesn't mean there isn't someone out
>> there who disagrees. We've got lots of lurkers here.
>> That being said, we're talking past each other, and what's funnier is we
>> obviously agree on the core that copyrighted text shouldn't be posted on
>> the list as it threatens its existence. What I am saying is, whether 1%
>> or 99% of people agree with this rule, it has zero bearing on the next
>> move. What matters is what the administrators of this list decide is
>> best to achieve protection and preservation of the list (I see Chris
>> Samuels is the listed admin, but I'm sure there are others).
>> So, what they decide I will abide by, but I stand by my position that it
>> would be a comfort, if nothing else, if there was a page with Beowulf
>> Email List Rules on it. I admit this disposition is driven by being
>> married to a lawyer :D.
> I agree with Ellis. I find it hard to believe that Joe's (probably)
> small sample size represents everyone on the list. The people who spoke
> out against this practice on this list I believe are a very small
> percentage of the list subscribers, and I think they have a personal
> interest in making money of pageviews, so they are not necessarily
> unbiased. Everyone knows people are more vocal with complaints than
> praise, so negative feedback is always disproportionate.
> Having said that, I agree that it is not necessarily a good practice to
> cut-and-paste entire articles into newsgroup messages. However, unless
> there is a specific rule banning this practice documented somewhere, it
> would be wrong for the list to take action against someone who allegedly
> violated a rule which doesn't exist (again, I agree with Ellis here).
> I think the proper plan of action would be the following:
> 1. Create a location where rules on this list can be published.
> (http://www.beowulf.org/guidelines?), along with actions taken when
> someone violates a rule.
> 2. Add a footer to each e-mail indicating where to find these rules, so
> no one can claim ignorance ( link on how to unsubscribe, etc, would be
> helpful, too).
> 3. All anyone on the list to propose a rule/posting guideline at any
> time and allow for adequate discussion. The rule-making process itself
> should probably be documented, to prevent accusations of bias.
> 4. Allow some time for everyone to comment on proposed rule.
> 5. Leave to list administrators to determine if there are enough "ayes"
> or "nayes" to implement the rule.
> 6. Add new rule to (1) and then communicate this change to the list.
> Personally, I'm against having many (any?) rules on this mailing list.
> Many great 'off-topic' conversations have been had here precisely
> because there are no real rules about content. It was a long time before
> a certain someone was moderated off this list despite years of
> complaints because people thought moderation was bad.Now that we do have
> moderation as a weapon, we shouldn't be too eager to use it.
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
More information about the Beowulf