[KI-LC] Revised DRAFT: Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists
Eve.Maler at Sun.COM
Sat Jul 11 07:21:53 PDT 2009
I was one of those who spoke up with a concern (and I'm sorry for not
having done so in email before the last call). It's definitely just
about perceptions, but I would hate for Kantara to be perceived as the
kind of org that judges whose messages get through based on what they
say (vs. whether they've agreed to the IPR rules -- an objective vs.
Since there's no strong reason for our policy to adhere to the
language imposed by a particular software package for particular
mailing list management, I'm hoping it's possible to substitute some
other word. And if I'm reading Trent's suggestion correctly below,
he's saying we could just be less specific about the distinctions
among the mailing list administration jobs -- which is fine with me
(what if we switched from mailman to monarch or something? we don't
want to have to revise the policy).
On Jul 10, 2009, at 2:07 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
> Roger M. -
> On this week's LC call there was some push-back relating to the use of
> the term "moderate" in the email policy we're drafting.
> In short, there is concern that the term may imply a connotation we
> don't intend. While the definition we'd proposed is technically
> accurate according to the mailing list software we use, the broader
> community has a slightly different interpretation of the term which
> might pose problems in our effort to communicate our intent.
> Basically, we want to make it clear in the policy that there are
> essentially two sets of people who can "manage" the list (i.e. have
> access to a set of management tools controlling the software). One
> is the KI Staff who are tasked with ensuring two things:
> 1. The software is correctly configured and running.
> 2. Checking to ensure Subscribers have signed the
> appropriate IPR policy for the associated Group
> and setting their posting permissions accordingly.
> The other set is comprised of those who (through delegation of the
> Leader) can perform only task 2 above.
> As I understand it, the problem is that the term "moderator" in common
> use also includes the notion of "reading queued messages and approving
> or denying the posting of the message based on the content." Even
> if we
> define the term differently in our policy, it is highly likely that
> common usage will cause confusion.
> What if we changed the first bullet in Section 5 to read:
> # All Lists are administered by Staff and by the Chair of the Group
> his/her delegate) to which the List is associated.
> I'm not sure this solves the conundrum, but it might help clarify that
> the tasks are clerical in nature, and in no way indicate a "censuring"
> of messages.
> What do you think?
> - Trent
Eve Maler eve.maler @ sun.com
Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345 6756
Sun Microsystems Identity Software www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
More information about the LC