[Volunteers] "As an anti-spam measure"?

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Jul 18 13:21:11 PDT 2005

Quoting J. Paul Reed (preed at svlug.org):

> Because there is no reasonable justification to provide that information to
> the public, including any subscribers.

Well, I'll give you one:  Subscribers, quite simply, often want to see
who else is on the mailing list.  This is a perfectly normal and
ordinary function on LUG mailing lists.  Why the hell would anyone want
to prevent this?

> 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.

And this, folks, is the exact sort of thing we call being a control
freak -- sort of like how you and Bill W. blew off my question about
where to get a copy of the web-team back-posts archive when you nuked
that mailing list, and instead asked me to justify why I "needed" it.

> > 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.

I certainly meant no personal insult:  Nobody knows everything.  I
certainly have immense gaps in my knowledge -- and accordingly am in the
habit of seeking out other sources of information where I sense that I'm
likely to screw up.

Given that, I'd have thought that it'd be nice to know places you can go
to get experienced help gladly given.  If you ever get over being
gratuitously "insulted" where no offence was meant, you could take the
point in the spirit intended. 

> > 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.

What, you need examples?  _Still_?

> 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.

I'm not "implying that it's a bad thing", so much as pointing out the
inherent contradiction between bemoaning the fading away of volunteers
and also redirecting pretty nearly everything we do to run through just 
the two of you.

> 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. 

Wow, do you really want to reduce the number of participants to just you
two plus yes-men who never tell you anything you don't enjoy hearing?

> 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.

Unfortunately for you, I said no such thing.  Why are you suddenly
supposing that I did?

> But the fact of the matter is you're the only volunteer I'm hearing
> these concerns from.

Heather has, also.

And I hadn't heard that reality was suddenly to be discerned by majority

> We've all heard them repeated a number of times now, and so
> you can consider your point heard.

And ignored.  OK.

More information about the volunteers mailing list