Organization Poll on the KCLUG Forums

[Adrian Griffis]

Jeffrey,

First, thanks for the constructive input.  It gives us all a more constructive
focus for the conversation.

To the group as a whole (including Jeffrey),

My concern can, perhaps, be illustrated with our latest email storm.
Frankly, I'm
not all that troubled by the occasional off topic thread.  I prefer
keeping a relaxed
atmosphere on this list.  The initial off-topic post really didn't
bother me, but the
storm of messages about what the rules should be seemed to be the real source
of discomfort to many of us.  And therein lies the problem.  Whatever line we
establish as the boundary between acceptable posts and unacceptable posts,
there is likely to be some gray area.  What do we do in cases where gray area
posts provoke email storms?  Are we to declare that discussions of what is
on or off topic are, themselves, off topic and not allowed on this
list?  If we decide
that such discussions are permissible, then the bulk of the problem we just
experienced may not actually be addressed by the solution we are proposing.

The next question is, regardless of whether or not the proposed solution will
do any good, how likely is it that the proposed solution will do harm.  I think
a rather subtle kind of harm can be done by any moderation scheme that exercises
a high degree of control.  As an example, I think it impedes
discussion, somewhat,
to delay each new message until a moderator approves it.  Personally I
would rather
suffer the occasional off-topic post than suffer the effect that sort
of positive control
moderation would have on discussion.

Even with the least restrictive forms of moderation, we would have to have some
sort of enforcement mechanism.  Ultimately, that enforcement mechanism would
have to control who is allowed to post to the list.  My experience with other
moderated lists is that there are complications some people end up
complaining about
when they are faced with list management software trying to control who has the
right to post to lists.  People who are unhappy to be shut out can find creative
ways to re-enroll on the list as a phony new user, and such tactics force list
management software filter incoming email in some interesting ways.
These filtering
methods can be similar or identical to the filtering techniques used
to fight spam.
My own opinion is that we'll have to deal with some kind of filtering
sooner or later
just to address spam, if we don't already, so I'm not opposed a kind
of moderation
where we advise people after the fact when their posts are inappropriate and we
ban them if they prove themselves unwilling to listen.  I'd still like
us to construe
the acceptable range of topics to be very large rather than very
limited.  The harm
done by very relaxed, after the fact moderation could be relatively minor.

In general, whatever we choose to do, I would like to see this list
attempt to be
welcoming to anyone in the area who has a interest in Linux.  To
accomplish this,
I would like to see the list tolerate brief tangents into non-Linux
topics.  I would not,
myself, welcome protracted discussions of religion, but I would rather see those
discussions rather than see topic police pouncing on every mention of something
non-Linux related.

Finally, whatever restrictions we endorse, they should be crafted as clear
principles.  The moderation standards should not be dependent on the popularity
of the speaker.  They should not vary depending the mood of the most irritable
members on any given day.  They should be spelled on, on line, and it should be
easy for anyone reading them to know what's okay and what's not okay.

Adrian