Michelle Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And yet other adminstrators feel that they should not be obligated to
> work for free to solve the problems of people who are not their
> customers or benefactors in any way.
>
> Just as not every user can change their mail agent, not every
> administrator is getting paid for hosting and running a list. Some
> even put in their own money to do so, never seeing, nor desiring a
> cent in return.
Almost nobody is paid to run lists, or paid enough to justify the portion of
their workday thus consumed. We are all doing someone a favor. That's why we
put our heads together here to work smarter at (and occasionally commiserate
about) the job. "Get a real mailer" is not coping with the issues, but copping
out. In the end, this serves no one, including the GARM crowd.
> Interesting, I thought Karen's message was very fair and even-handed.
> She seemed aware that just as not every user is in the same situation,
> neither is every list owner (which is why she detailed her situation
> and how it was special). I wonder if she is comfortable being grouped
> with you and your characterization of list-owners who have different
> opinions than yours?
Let her worry about that. The truthfulness of my remarks does not depend on her
willingness to associate with them, nor hers with mine.
We all have to arrive at our own compromises in list administration, based on
the size and composition of each list, its special subject matter (if any), and
our own abilities and resources as admins. Two principles should guide us in
that process:
1. Whenever it is possible to make a choice in favor of greater tolerance of
mail clients, broader participation by more users with less control over their
environments, etc, we say yes. (This is the founding principle of LISTSERV.)
Pure discussion lists should never have arbitrary client restrictions imposed.
2. When it is INTRINSICALLY necessary to require special client capabilities on
a list, e.g. because it exists to distribute stereotaxograms, or it is in
Chinese, or it is encrypted in a special way, or the list host only speaks
EBCDIC, etc, then a comprehensive resource FTP directory/Web page explaining,
containing and/or linking to all the necessary software, should be available as
a companion resource, described or included in the Welcome and FAQ files, and
periodically reminded on the list itself.
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> Given that the cost of the necessary computing hardware and software
> has dropped to an amazingly low level, I see nothing wrong with insisting
> that subscribers avail themselves of suitable resources to serve their
> own needs.
The problem is that we as list admins are in no position to say what "their own
needs" are, either in the context of our own lists (where a majority of members
may feel no "own need" to sit through a download of a 175K WAV file of someone
saying "Hello everyone!," and in fact may vociferously object, though hopefully
not with their own WAV files) or - MOST IMPORTANTLY - in the context of other
lists or mail networks to which our members may belong. We are all little
tinpot autocrats of our email worlds and it is easy to assume that our members'
email lives revolve around us; but it is not so. I have any number of people on
my lists who *have* to use Mailer X, not only because their PC support
department dictates it, but because it supports their online meeting facility or
company bulletins or whatever. They will not switch to UberMailer ZZ no matter
how persuasively I sell it, or how many List-Manager digests full of "get a real
mailer" pronunciamentos I show them. And yet, they are as full and valuable a
member of their discussion lists as any overeducated beta-tester cable-modem
cybergeek in the roster. I cannot wash my hands of them because they "choose
not to" quit their jobs and work somewhere else in order to be able to discuss
Chaucer with a mail client of my particular liking - or to keep and use three
mailers to satisfy the *differing* whims of three separate know-it-all
listadmins.
> The responsibility of the list admin is to
> provide a service that matches the description of the service, to do so
> in as standards-compliant a manner as possible, and to attend to issues
> such as resource consumption/abuse/etc. in a timely manner.
Michelle Dick points out that most of us don't get paid to do this. If we did
get paid, our "responsibility" would be to do what our supervisors told us to
do, whether it matched Rich's description and complied with standards, or it was
totally at odds with his description and trashed the standards, or whatever.
Since we do not get paid, our "responsibility" is whatever we reasonably
construe it to be. Rich offers one such construction and I another.
I claim that we have not just a responsibility, but an incentive to put the user
FIRST, and our personal, ephemeral software enthusiasms second; to avoid the
easy temptation to target our list support at the level of supposedly "clueful"
users who can actually take care of themselves without our help; and to recruit
such assistance as we need to do the work, rather than doing too much ourselves
and taking it out on the users. The incentive is longevity.
> There is nothing un-egalitarian about this: there is, however, I think
> something vaguely Orwellian and insidious about penalizing the clueful and
> suitably-equipped subscribers in order to provide for the needs of the
> selfish few who insist on using inadequate tools to handle their mail.
Just personally, where discussion lists are concerned, I think this is
bullshit - people who imagine they HAVE to be able to use rotating blinking pink
Playbill drop caps to talk about the new Cessna cockpit design are a lot less
"clueful" than the term implies. By all means go ahead and create a Cessna list
where RTF/MIME/HTML software is required - making sure you put that requirement
prominently in the list's Description and INFO files as a prerequisite for
membership - and best of luck; we'll compare notes in five years - that is, if
your list is still around - and see if you haven't been fighting the same stupid
battle anyway, over 3-D smellovision includes or something. :) But don't
pretend to publish a GENERAL list for Cessna discussion - one where special
software is NOT listed as a prerequisite for joining - and then sit around
browbeating supposedly "clueless" users after the fact for not having "real"
mailers. And, I might add, don't be surprised if some low-tech Cessna listserv
that predated your whizbang list by seven years also outlives it and "keeps on
ticking" by being TTC:
Text-centered,
Topic-centered and
Collaborative.
> ... I would hazard
> the guess that most of those who are stuck with obsolete/broken tools such
> as All-In-1 and Lotus Notes and Microsoft Exchange at work could choose
> to pay for Internet access at home and thus avoid the problem entirely.
Only for leisure time topics. I have seen estimates that as many as one-half of
all mailing lists out there are set up for business communication. Imagine, for
a moment, a discussion list set up for tech support on some brand of PBX phone
system. They are going to be subject to every cross-company and "clueless user"
headache and challenge we have ever discussed here, but they are NOT going to
have the luxury of saying "Well, I don't get paid to take care of idiots." They
probably STILL don't get paid to run the list per se - it was the brainchild of
a "clueful" customer support manager who wanted to harness the Net for better
results - so in a sense it is every bit as much of a thankless "favor" as the
fellow who runs the Bluegrass Lovers list is doing. Only these members are
customers. They don't CARE if the fellow at the PBX company really loves XML or
hates Exchange - that's not his role in their lives.
> I suppose in part this comes down to a philosophical issue: there
> are people who are ready, willing and able to accomodate problem users.
> This is exceedingly generous of them...
And then there are those can take perfectly ordinary, intelligent and
enthusiastic list members who, for reasons ranging from ironclad company policy
to download-time economy to personal visual preference, happen to use plain text
mailers, and label them "problem users." That is not my definition of a problem
user, nor (I suspect) is it the definition most of us arrive at after a few
years of adminning. None of us have much time or patience for real problem
users, and it is not our obligation or responsibility (under ANY of these
models) to babysit their neurotic antics. ACCOMODATING PLAIN TEXT READERS
SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED HAZARD DUTY ON DISCUSSION LISTS - EVER.
Rather than argue the issue forever, I look forward to finding and developing
more tools that will allow the LISTSERV principle to survive for many more
years.
