[NTLUG:Discuss] NTLUG Discuss Guidelines

[Richard Cobbe]

Lo, on Friday, 24 March, 2000, MadHat did write:

> 
> OK, I am working on the list of guidlines/charter.  It is hacked from
> other LUGs and ideas already discussed here.  If you have anhthing you
> think should be added, please send it to me off list.

I'm deliberately posting these comments TO the list, because I'd like to
see some discussion by the members of the group on these issues.

> * Do not quote more lines of a message than you actually add in your
> reply. 

Um.  I'm not sure I like this one.  I understand where it's coming from,
and I like the basic idea.  However, I don't think that a rule based on
just comparing the number of lines is sufficiently sophisticated to handle
all cases.  There may be cases where breaking the above rule is actually
the Right Thing, although I'd be hard-pressed to provide a non-contrived
example.  The other points (no "me too!" messages, quote only relevant
parts) should handle this sufficiently, I think.

> * No job postings on this list. 

If that's what the group wants, then fine.  In that case, it might be
beneficial to start an additional mailing list expressly for job postings.
(If that one needs a moderator, sign me up.)
 
> * "Praise in public; criticize in private." Some disagreements are
> inevitable but take flames off-line from the list. If you must correct
> factual errors on the list, be polite and correct just the facts. Don't
> attack the author - be careful about uses of "you" and "your" in such
> replies, since they make the response personal. 

Um.  I understand the desire to keep the list flame-free, and I'm all for
it.  However, I'd like to see the group do this in such a way that we do
not completely preclude rational discourse and discussion.  The above
guideline (rule?) is phrased in such a way as to suggest that such
discourse is not welcome here.  Perhaps a substitution for the above
quotation: "comments welcome, flames to /dev/null"?  (I personally tend to
believe that any philosophy or general rule that's short enough to fit on a
bumper sticker is, by definition, too simple to apply to the real world.)

                                   * * *

One thing that's missing: what happens to a message that violates any or
all of these constraints?  Does the post get cancelled?  Does the poster
get unsubscribed after repeated violations?  If so, how many?  

I'd be in favor of just cancelling the posts, with a short note back to the
poster explaining the reason it was rejected.  Given this, I don't think it
necessary to unsubscribe people without their consent.  However, I'm open
to discussion on this.

Richard