[wlug_org] Rule suggestions (proposal)

[Brent Wood]

--- Tony Wills <ajwills@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> > > Which I suggest is much less than it could or should be, but it is what
> > >the group as a whole seems to want, ie:  no rules = open list. (Brent)
> >
> >Is it worth reviewing that? (Jamie)
> >...
> 
> If we need any rules, perhaps one would suffice -

I've proposed the 3 below, I think 3 simple ones is tidier than one more
complex one. (Given that Tony & I think it worth pursuing, & Jamie is at least
half way there as he raised the question of reviewing the situation formally
:-)

> 
> If you are going to go off on a tangent or otherwise subvert a thread then 
> change the subject line to something pertinent.
> (That also implies that if you want to comment on the original subject and 
> digress as well, that you post your digression as a separate post).
> Digression includes complaints/comments/flames about the original posting 
> style/spelling/grammar/relevance etc.

Makes sense...as it seems there is as much concensus here about this as there
is about anything.


I therefore propose the following for concensus approval of the org list.
Please comment on wording, to refine the proposal for submitting to the main
list & meeting. I also suggest that as this is very much list related, that a
meeting vote is not appropriate to approve the proposal, instead a vote is
taken on the Wellylug web site (if this is OK with Jethro etc).


Proposal 1.

"Message subjects on wellylug mailing lists MUST be pertinent. Any replies
which focus on a different topic, even when broadly related to the original,
should clearly identify this in the subject line."


Rationale:

The list is having long threads where the final topic has very little to do
with the subject of the original post. This is not useful & is generally
confusing. Given the wide range of topics considered appropriate for the
mailing list, this proposal will help ensure the list is a more useful
resource.


Proposal 2.

(With Ewen's consent)

"WellyLUG subscribers get an initial joining message which points them to the
web site where LUG rules & guidelines are available."

Rationale:

New (& old) members are not sure what the preferred netiquette or LUG
guidelines are. Some members have suggested or assumed their own preferences
constitute LUG guidelines, and have suggested others should follow them. To
avoid having such preferences be treated as guidelines, the web site should
clearly state what the rules & guidelines are (which I believe it does now) and
members should be made (& ideally kept) aware of this. 

(on this topic, it may be better to have these under a LUG "guidelines" entry
instead of "discussions - not that easy to find as they are - Jethro?)

I know there may be an admin issue given the different memberships od teh web
site & lists, but there must be some way of implementing a suitable reminder
msg- automated administrivia or something?

> 
> That way people can ask a question and expect to have that addressed 
> without having to contend with a lot of noise and also know that having 
> dipped into a thread and found it not to their taste that they can safely 
> ignore the whole thing without missing anything ;-)
> 

Well phrased. Hopefully covered in proposal 1?

> Enforcement - all those interested send off-list emails pointing out the 
> error (the intensity of the barrage proportional to the number of people 
> who think you're off topic ;-) and refrain from posting on-list replies 
> without amending the subject line (or be subjected to the same enforcement 
> strategy :-)

This seems a reasonable self-policing approach. It does not cope with
intentional ongoing abusers, but without the ability to specify & control
membership, which would need a closed list with membership via
application/approval, I don't really see an alternative.


So proposal 3.

"Any member who is concerned that a post does not comply with LUG guidelines is
encouraged to discuss their concern off list, and to attempt to resolve such
issues privately. In the event of the parties unable to reach agreement, any
list discussion is to be carried out in the public forum of the org list, NOT
the general wellylug list." 

Rationale:

Largely self evident, but basically it supports Tony's proposal (at least as I
read it), with the addition of specifying that the appropriate forum for
discussing this is the org list, not the main one. Should keep threads on
organisational & guideline issues off the main list.


Brent