[linux-elitists] Proposal: Roster accessible to subscribers
zgp-org at the-tilghman.com
Thu Mar 26 09:46:11 PDT 2009
On Thursday 26 March 2009 11:33:00 Rick Moen wrote:
> Well, there had to be one. And, true to form, I note that he doesn't
> want to speak for himself or for any actual subscriber, only on behalf
> of theoretical subscribers who could in theory object but who cannot
> seem to be found.
> Quoting D. Joe Anderson (deejoe at etrumeus.com):
> > It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Don has made a commitment that
> > he'll keep subscribers' addresses confidential.
> First, I cannot recall Don ever saying that -- and especially not saying
> that subscribers' addresses shall be eternally and completely concealed
> from _other subscribers_. Can you show me where he did?
> However, you are posing a blatantly false dilemma: You are suggesting
> the only way to honour such an (alleged) pledge is to continue to
> deprive subscribers of roster access completely. As already detailed,
> that is not the case.
> Don can announce on-list "In a week, March 31, I will be changing this
> mailing list's subscriber roster from viewable by listadmin only to
> viewable by subscribers. If you wish to conceal the fact of your
> membership and your e-mail address from all other subscribers (other
> than the listadmin), you'll need to change your subscriber option
> "Conceal yourself from subscriber list?" from "no" to "yes". Five days
> later, reminder. Seven days, flip the option.
> > A reasonable way forward would be to set all current
> > subscriptions to "hide"....
> Yes, we need to inconvenience everyone for the sake of theoretical
> subscribers who have been invited to speak up but have said nothing, and
> whom nobody can find. I'm sure that's "reasonable" in _some_ universe.
> Essentially, you are assuming that concealed is the norm, that people
> joining this list expected, and that changing the default _even with
> advance warning_ would be somehow breaking faith. None of those things
> is within a country mile of being true -- and it's not even a Mailman
> default. Mailman's default is a completely public roster, for heaven's
> sake! No, instead this is a misconfiguration that needs correcting --
> especially on an _elitits'_ mailing list -- not a sacred trust.
Yes, but asking users to take action to avoid exposing their addresses isn't
elitism -- it's the lowest form of human activity, mainly advanced by the
Internet marketers and spammers. Their ideal would have everybody opt out,
instead of opt-in, as we would have it. I believe the vast majority of this
list is adamant about netiquette, and one key principle of netiquette is that
when you want to make a change, you propose to allow persons affected by that
change to opt-in, not force them to opt-out.
I also don't really care what Don decides to do with regards to this policy,
but any change should be in line with Linux Elitists' own standards. Anything
else would be hypocritical.
More information about the linux-elitists