I think that Rosan is right, Jan is right, Ken is right and David
(Durling) is right - all to a certain degree.
I think that in matters of conference policy, Ken has the authority.
David as list owner can regulate the list.
Jan's point is important, because a private mail from an authority
concerning the recipient's behaviour on the list is not completely
the same as a private mail from any member concerning any topic - it
can't be disconnected from the authority role, and subsequently the
responsibility towards the community that finally accredits the
authority by choosing to participate, contribute and stay around.
This responsibility the list authorities must respect, as Rosan
notes, in order for the list to stay vital and interesting.
Maybe Ken is right in that the conference shouldn't be burdened with
the protocol oriented debate or negotiation, but the problem is that
there is no other channel for it in this community, and the protocol
related views can not be discussed on the list while the conference
has taken it over an laid new rules. These kinds of public
negotiations are critical to the community, as members should know
how matters are settled.
While the conference is a great and worthwhile effort, it does burden
the community, as it requires all of us to learn new rules and
suppress certain modes of activity that we have taken to be possible
and natural (and sometimes heated and unreasonable, sometimes not) on
the list. But I think that, considering the value of the conference,
this is a reasonable burden, and we should try to see where this
leads, and maybe assess the protocols etc. after the event.
May I suggest that the discussion concerning policy and protocol
should not be banned but minimized, so that we allow critique but do
not burden the list too much with it, and that any such messages
should begin with the string "PROTOCOL:" as in the subject of this
message to make it easy to filter it out?
In the same fashion, any other messages that do not pertain to the
conference could be flagged with an appropriate flag. (In fact, the
best solution would probably be to have a special channel for the
conference, but since this is a system management nightmare in todays
underdeveloped email world, I understand that the organizers chose to
do it on the list.)
best, kari-hans
...
At 11:53 +0100 2.12.2003, Rosan Chow wrote:
>Ammm, I would like to ask for a little clarificaton here.
>
>my general understanding concerning who has the higher authority on the
>list is as follows, and would like to know if my view is correct:
>
>the list owners David Durling and Keith Russell are technical owners. I
>respect them very much for their voluntarism. for all that i know, this
>list is unmoderated. and anyone who chooses to moderate, does it on his
>or her own terms. some kind of self-appointment. having said that, i
>appreciate those who are willing to take on this difficult task.
>
>the 'real' owners are each individual memebers. and our contribution and
>remaining on the list are the chief driving force to vitality of this
>list.
>
>there is no higher authority.
>
>rosan
>
>
>
>Ken Friedman wrote:
>
>> Anyone who feels that the convener
>> needs a caution or reminder from higher authority is free to take
>> matters up with the list owner, David Durling.
>
>--
>Rosan Chow
>Female Doctoral Student
>University of Arts Braunschweig, Germany
|