[Volunteers] Undisclosed banned discussion topics (was: yum extender)

William R Ward bill at svlug.org
Mon Jul 11 00:04:41 PDT 2005


Rick Moen writes:
>Quoting William R Ward (bill at wards.net):
>
>> I will discuss the list policies with Paul (SVLUG President) and we
>> will make an announcement to clarify matters.
>
>An "announcement"?
>
>To reiterate, yet again:  It would be a great deal more useful if you
>would put a complete list of everything that is currently banned
>from svlug@ _onto SVLUG's list policy Web page_:  At the moment, that
>page seems misleading.  I have brought this matter to your and Paul's
>attention before.

Yes, we'll post it there as well, once we figure out what it should be.

>(I will be glad to perform any edits on your behalf that you specify,
>if you wish, but I don't touch the text myself lest I inadvertantly set
>policy.)

If you would like to suggest some changes I think it would be entirely
appropriate for you to post such ideas here or on the officers list.
While it's true that you shouldn't be setting policy, there's no
reason you can't suggest a policy change or submit an edit for officer
approval.

>> In the meantime please move any further discussion of this topic to 
>> the svlug-volunteers list.
>
>Until _this_ post, the discussion wasn't even faintly topical for
>volunteers@ , a list that exists for coordinating volunteer activity --
>which accordingly made your suggestion seem extremely peculiar, unless
>perhaps you made it solely because this mailing list is:
>
>o  an entirely backroom forum not visible to the membership or the
>   public, and 
>o  not even open to SVLUG members generally, except upon having their 
>   join requests vetted personally by either you or Paul.  (Oddly, 
>   neither of you have ever seen fit to mention that restriction to the 
>   membership.)

My goal is to not scare people off the svlug lists with unwanted
traffic about topics that have nothing to do with why they joined the
list.  That's less likely to happen on the volunteers list.

>> I have set the Reply-To accordingly on this message to facilitate that.
>
>Ironically enough, that's not even how the Reply-To header works:  It 
>specifies an alternate address to be substituted for the _sender_
>address in any replies.  (Please see the definition of that header in
>RFC822.)

Yeah, I know, it's kind of like the Reply-To munging that some mailing
lists use, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

>However, I have manually readdressed my reply in accordance with your
>request.

Thank you.  Most mail software would have automatically done that; I
guess yours doesn't.

--Bill.

-- 
William R. Ward - Vice President, Silicon Valley Linux Users Group
bill at svlug.org - http://www.svlug.org - (650) 279-9904




More information about the volunteers mailing list