1. I have been corresponding with one member about the proposed GFA and
have realised that part of its intent hasn't been explained. The
proposed document simply sets out the limits on what the admins are
permitted to do (in particular that they not act without cause and
that they not disclose what they learn to outsiders).
The member that I have been corresponding with is concerned that
effective administrators will need clearer guidance and that therefore
this document is nowhere near adequate.
What I have neglected to point out is that the documented GFA is
not intended to be a means to give guidance to admins, it is
intended to be a means to give members a clear understanding of
what constraints the admins operate under. The exec's guidance/
control of the the admins is effected through frequent (currently
monthly) meetings where goings on are discussed. In the opinion
of the current executive, any other means (that is any means other
than frequent discussion) of guiding the admins is futile.
So, when looking at the GFA, recognise it as a statement of their
constraints, not an "Operation Manual for ProgSoc Administrators".
2. Another member has approached me and asked that consideration be
given to the current practice of publically archiving the contents
of the progsoc@nospam.progsoc mailing list.
His concerns are specifically that this archiving and republication
is occurring without the knowledge of those who are posting and
that, remarks made in one context are likely, when taken out
of context years later (e.g. found in a web search engine result page)
to be seriously misinterpreted.
Some possibilities that spring to mind: First, that all messages
so archived grow a footer pointing this out before delivery
to the list (so all messages appearing on the list are marked with
a warning that they are publically archived, thus allowing anyone
posting a reasonable opportunity to be aware that the archiving is
occurring). Next, perhaps an upper limit on how long the archive is
kept (or kept public) should be set (1 year? 2?). Additionally,
perhaps members should be in a position to ask for specific articles
posted prior to the marking proposed above, be removed from the archive
immediately.
I have never given this much thought, except that I got a bit of
a surprise the first time I punched my own name into Alta Vista.
I can see the likelihood that most of the membership does not
expect their comments to be archived and published with their names
on them for perpetuity, and perhaps that this would not be
appreciated by some.
Thoughts?
- Raz rjturner@nospam.socs.uts.edu.au
"It often upsets a man's God fantasies to have (Misquoted? from )
someone shoot down one of his helicopters." (Ben Elton's "Stark" )