On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 01:31:23PM -0500, Tom Neff wrote:
> 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
This is not a problem. This is a feature, and it is precisely the point
I am making. I can tell potential subscribers what traffic on the lists
that I manage is like (e.g. "10-15 message/week, total volume 50K") but
it is up to *them* to decide what they need to handle that -- plus anything
else they might subscribe to.
So if J. Random User signs up for a list described as "80-120 message/day,
sent in ASCII and HTML and PDF" then J. Random User has implicitly accepted
the personal responsibility to have the resources on hand to deal with
that -- which might mean, I dunno, a fast modem, lots of disk space?
Who can say? But I know that I, the list manager can't, and won't, solve
this problem for them.
> 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.
Sure you can. You have *chosen* not to. That's fine. Just don't expect
or demand that everyone else make the same choice. We don't have to.
> > 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.
I strongly and firmly disagree. I believe that it is the obligation
of anyone performing these services in a professional manner to comply
with the relevant standards -- and if that means going against a
supervisor's wishes, then YES that's what it means.
Is that tough? Yes, it is. Deal with it. But don't you or anyone else
expect a bit of sympathy from *me* if you cave in to some pointy-haired
boss who wouldn't know an RFC if it landed on his power tie and start
running your mailing lists in a non-standards compliant way that causes
problems for other folks on the 'net.
> I claim that we have not just a responsibility, but an incentive to put
> the user FIRST, and our personal, ephemeral software enthusiasms second;
And you base this claim on...?
Yeah, that's what I thought. *Nothing*.
Free clue for you: we get to set our own priorities. If I decide,
for whatever arbitrary reason, that I want to run all my mailing lists
with the foobar package and that I won't accomodate any users who can't
deal with mail from the foobar package, that's my choice. It may be
a limiting choice or an idiosyncratic choice or even a dumb choice,
but it's still my choice. Provided it's standards-compliant (so that
it doesn't cause technical problems for other people) there's nothing
stopping me from making it.
> 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;
I happen to like those users. I happen to dislike non-clueful
users. My lists reflect these likes and and dislikes. I intend
to continue to run them this way.
> 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.
Uh...have you been reading this list for any length of time? I've
vociferously argued against such mechanisms on more than one occasion.
> > 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.
Huh? What's *that* got to do with it?
> I have seen estimates that as many as one-half of
> all mailing lists out there are set up for business communication.
Cite sources, please.
> 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.
What "LISTSERV principle"?! Are you referring to that buggy, expensive,
closed-source, obsolete, hulking behemoth of a mailing list management
package that still has archaic code from its BITnet days? The only
"principle" that seems to have come from that is that people will continue
to use obsolete software even when vastly superior packages (e.g.
majordomo/majorcool, for one) are available.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
