On 2/9/01 1:50 PM, "murr rhame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the risk of picking another fight with Chuq...
(air hug!)
> I haven't had
> any significant problems with disruptive meta-discussions. Am I
> just lucky? Anyone else have a major problem with volunteer
> list-cops?
You're probably somewhat lucky. At this point, I can't say these are major
issues on my lists, either. I think most people have figured out those damn
fake virus emails, too. It's hard for me to sometimes tell how much of this
is global/systemic to the list world, how much is the part I'm attached to,
and how much is how I've got my list users trained. It may be those are
phases that the list world have grown past, or we're just waiting for the
next wave of newbies or something.
The problem is these meta-fights can be very destructive, very quickly.
Suddenly you come back from lunch to 40 messages that boil down to "no, YOU
shut up!" and half the list is ducking under their desks to avoid the
crossfire.
> I allow and occasionally encourage list
> policy discussions on-list.
So do I, sort of. I generally don't allow meta discussions to go on the
list; I ask people to contact me privately to talk. But when the issue is
how the admin is doing (in most cases, me) -- that's when it's opened up for
open discussion. Ditto when there are policy or similar issues -- because
you want the list involved (or, if people are yelling at me over something,
I don't want the perception OR reality of attempting to avoid being held
responsible for my actions by taking stuff private. I'll take my licks where
people don't have to worry about being ignored or retribution of some kind.
I think it's best to keep those discussions open).
God, I say "it's a judgement call" a lot, don't I? (grin)
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Internet Gnome <http://www.chuqui.com>
[<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Yes, yes, I've finally finished my home page. Lucky you.
Any connection between your reality and mine
is purely coincidental.
