i'm on a couple of other lists that are so politically charged (for some) that they make a point of telling you all the time, the conversations here are private. but it's also subbed to by approval, not by anyone under teh sun at any time automatically--like this list is. for all you know, the universe could be subbed to this list, and then if the archives were only available to "listmembers" (like, say, archangel) they'd still be available to the whole frickin' universe. think about that the next time you sub to a list and assume it's "private" (whatever you think that means) or that you somehow know where all the posts are going. you already don't, archives or no archives.
'course, when i subbed, i subbed from the web site (being a latecomer, and all), where you can also find a link to the . . . archives.
i also understand the employment research issue. yahoo email accounts are free. i have multiple free email accounts and i use them when i think i need them. otoh, here i would disagree with max. i agree that archangels are suspicious, but IF we really are genuinely worried about the employment-related issues AND we don't want a private list subbed-to by approval through doug (which it seems we don't and he doesn't) AND we don't want to efface email addresses (and i don't--off-list contact is tricky but important), THEN we ought to allow aliases. my two cents.
doug can do whatever he wants with the list and the rest of us have to live with it, imo, but (speaking as a veteran community manager) if i were doug i would think hard before disallowing aliases. on a public list like this, you'll create an awful lot of work for yourself if people like budge decide to muck around with you just to prove to you that they can (and that therefore they should have the right to).
j
On Monday, March 18, 2002, at 11:24 PM, Angry and Spiteful too! wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 at 2:41am Matt Cramer wrote:
>>
>> Ah, it seems you've done some homework. But it is still
>> a cheap shot. And I don't see much respect in demanding
>> that list archives be managed in a way that appeals to
>> your particular notion of online privacy.
>
> You miss the point entirely (but that is not your fault, you
> weren't there), but there was a long discusion of public
> archiving on a list that was in some ways in an ancestor of
> this list. Doug was there for that conversation. I joined
> this list in response to an invitation posted to that (by
> then) moribund list. There was nothing in the note I got
> upon subscribing that indicated this was to be a publicaly
> archived list. In fact, for many years there were no
> archives at all. I don't object to the archives, I object
> to the slutty distribution of them. I'd have worn a condom.
>
> Oh, and it is now Monday, and i see the 'polls' have closed
> sometime over the weekend while i was not reading. Cute,
> but i don't care. I know what the rules are now, and i
> didn't actually think i could change them. Ain't my list,
> nor is it my server, or bandwidth the thing runs off of.
> What I am bitching about is that the rules were changed,
> retroactively, without any notice, never mind a vote.
>
> A vote at this point means nothing to me, because my posts
> have already been distributed far beyond where i sent them,
> without my permission.
>
> Barn door, horse, gone.
>
>
> --
> no Onan
>
> Undefeated, everybody goes home
>
>
>
>