[Volunteers] "As an anti-spam measure"?
J. Paul Reed
preed at svlug.org
Mon Jul 18 12:55:00 PDT 2005
On 18 Jul 2005 at 12:33:22, Rick Moen arranged the bits on my disk to say:
> Quoting J. Paul Reed (preed at svlug.org):
> > The svlug@ roster is not going to be made visible to its subscribers.
> May I ask why? As noted, each subscriber elects (at subscription or
> thereafter) whether to be concealed from the list's roster or not. So,
> the cited "antispam" justification seems simply inapplicable.
Because there is no reasonable justification to provide that information to
the public, including any subscribers.
It's not relevant to anyone who's on our mailing lists. So it's not a
decision I even want to have to make people make.
> You know, and I hope you'll take this in the spirit intended, you guys
> would have had a _whole_ lot less trouble if you'd consulted people who
> actually know Mailman administration in the first place.
Your implication that both Bill and I *don't* know Mailman administration
is insulting, Rick.
> > > Again, I see this as part of the trend of centralisation that's
> > > marked their administration.
> > That's *exactly* what we're doing.
> Well, that's entirely your privilege -- but then you shouldn't act
> surprised when you notice less participation by other volunteers, after
> having maked a concerted effort, in a number of areas, to cut everyone
> but yourself and Bill W. out of the loop. Thus my point -- of which
> Mailman admin is just one example.
This is a downright mischaracterization, Rick.
Bill W. and I *have* centralized SVLUG precisely because when we took the
reins, the organization was unfocused and (in my opinion) not as effective
as it could be.
You imply that "centralization" is a bad thing, but I think a number of
people would disagree with you about actions that were a result of such
"centralization," such as the volunteers mailing list.
If you don't like the trend of "centralization" as you believe you see it,
then you're welcome to not contribute as a volunteer. That's your
prerogative. Your emails noting it over and over again aren't going to
> If I had a dollar for every time I've heard you say "Bill and I had lunch
> and we decided..." (about something you then announced without consulting
> anyone), I'd have the price of a nice dinner at Original Joe's, by now.
I think you're exaggerating, Rick. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop it.
The fact of the matter is, I've had lunch with Bill once, *maybe* twice
since the beginning of our term.
We discussed things that we felt needed to change immediately for the
survival of SVLUG (the meeting location issue was the big issue discussed).
You need to become comfortable with the fact that not *every* volunteer is
going to be consulted on *every single* decision that is *ever* made.
Such an expectation is unreasonable.
If you'd like to lambast Bill and I for meeting together to plan out
and execute on finding a viable, longterm meeting location, starting new
SVLUG activities like Hacking Society and "Nifty of the Month" to
revitalize the group and play with the meeting format, and generally trying
to pull SVLUG out of its rut, all of which *required* centralization of
decision makers and leadership (which you see embodied not only in Bill W.
and I meeting, but in the Volunteer dinners), then please continue to do so
offline and/or in private email to me or officers at .
But the fact of the matter is you're the only volunteer I'm hearing these
concerns from. We've all heard them repeated a number of times now, and so
you can consider your point heard.
Unless you have something new to say, please move on.
Silicon Valley Linux Users' Group
preed at svlug.org
More information about the volunteers