[KI-LC] Revised DRAFT: Policy for Joining Groups and Group Discussion Lists
drummond.reed at cordance.net
Mon Jul 13 18:46:01 PDT 2009
+1. Many folks will see the word "moderator" and wonder why we have
moderated lists, which is not what these are at all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-
> bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:22 AM
> To: J. Trent Adams
> Cc: Leadership Council; Roger.Martin at corp.aol.com
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Revised DRAFT: Policy for Joining Groups and Group
> Discussion Lists
> 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.
> subjective criterion).
> 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
> > set
> > 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
> > Group
> > 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
> > the
> > 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
> > (or
> > 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
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
More information about the LC