[linux-elitists] Proposal: Roster accessible to subscribers

[D. Joe Anderson]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:

> 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

Perhaps you haven't read the list info page, then:

"If you are a lurker, your address is confidential. "

> -- and especially not saying [strawman ellided]

I didn't claim he promised to defend the confidentiality to the
ends of the earth.  It's a simple statement.  The extent to
which he wishes to honor it is up to him.

> However, you are posing a blatantly false dilemma:  

Again, wrong.  I offered a way to honor the commitment while
still changing the policy.  I'm almost sorry it doesn't get you
what you want.  

> 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.

He could do a lot of things.  

> > 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.

I don't think *everyone* is inconvenience either way.  I think
most people don't a damn.  Your characteristic over-the-top
tantrum indicates that you do.  Film at 11.

> Essentially, you are assuming that concealed is the norm,

Not the norm, but the stated, status quo policy.  And I don't
assume it, I know it, because I can read.

-- 
Joe