| |
On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 02:10:32PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> > (I'm trying to guess where the FUT was supposed to be -
> > .admin.general?)
>
> Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she
> announced (http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=1629) the "New Policy on
> Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT
> there to keep things together (there is already another followup
> there) although I agree you could argue .general as well.
Sure, np - I wasn't trying to second-guess, just to guess what it was
actually set to, since news-by-mail doesn't reflect that, and I wasn't
feeling adventerous enough to look up the msg itself on the server.
> > I think this is a good idea (not just the accoutnability, but the
> > whole suspension bit). But I'm trying to understand the technical
> > details - when someone is suspended, will it be noted someplace? If
> > it's not (at least not to the public), will the admins get notified?
> > Or does everyone that get suspended have to write to all those
> > people to make sure that the process was followed? (Can you guess
> > which way I think would be better? :)
>
> Not sure I understand the questions. We have an internal mailing list.
> That's where we will note candidates for timeout along with the groups
> and time suggested... as well as noting that the timeout was imposed.
> There is no mechanism right now to cause a mail to get sent when the
> timeout is actually implemented, it will be a manual process. (a bcc
> or forward of the note sent to the person given the timeout seems the
> best way to go as that preserves the note sent as well as notifying
> everyone that it happened)
Right, the process seems ok, actually. The problem I was worried about
is if someone doesn't follow the process, no one will know about it -
like what (I think) happened to Chris in .foo.
> But we're satisifed there are sufficent checks and balances in place.
> If someone is not satisfied with the process in their case, they
> should only have to write to one of us to start an inquiry, not all of
> us, unless there's some reason to doubt our basic integrity. And if
> you're doubting that, perhaps LUGNET isn't really the vehicle you want
> to use for discussion anyway.
To paraphrase, "if you don't like the admins, don't let the door hit you
on your way out"? Well, since I don't actually distrust the admins, I
think I'll stay.
> > This sounds like a good idea, but I worry about stale emails in
> > profiles. Especially for people who post via the web, there isn't
> > anything right now that checks that their email address is still
> > valid.
>
> No, that's true, there isn't. The onus is on the user to keep their
> mail up to date, though. It's a ToS requirement, actually.
Right.
...
> > I do think this new "power" is a good thing, and should have always
> > been there. I just don't want the technical details of it to get in
> > the way.
>
> These are all process details rather than technical ones, but sure. We
> think we've got the details thought out. Thinking through the details
> was part of the reason this wasn't announced the day it was turned on
> (22 December). However if there are still holes, by all means, point
> them out. The goal here is to get a process that works, and is fair to
> all parties but not impossibly procedural to implement. Sometimes time
> is of the essence.
I think for the most part, I do like the process. It is missing the
'transparency' bit, but I think that's true of most of LUGNET's
administration. And since it's a privately-owned board, transparency
isn't a requirement.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) Kelly set .terms on purpose, by the precedent that Suz set when she announced ((URL) the "New Policy on Bickering in LUGNET Newsgroups", not by mistake. I've reset the FUT there to keep things together (there is already another followup there) (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
