[TAG] Ya know, I've changed my mind.

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:11:19PM -0800, Mike Orr wrote:
> Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> [A lot of unfriendly stuff.]
> 
> AFAIK we still have an open-door policy on TAG membership.  Is it time 
> to reconsider this? 

Not as I see it. It's kinda like free speech, Mike; there are thousands
of reasons that people don't like it - a lot of Russian immigrants think
that Americans are insane to allow something that subversive ([sigh]...)
 - but the arguments for keeping it and defending it are so compelling
that the alternative nothing less than suicide for a society based on
that as one of its priniciples.

We're not quite that polarized here, but _one_ visit from _one_
loudmouth should not cause us to change policy in major ways.

> The list is primarily for question-answerers, but 
> we have occasionally encouraged Linux newbies who might be answerers 
> later to subscribe, to improve their own knowledge.  But that was before 
> the number of questions went down and the number of off-topic threads 
> went up.  Is there a feasable way to make people demonstrate they know 
> what the list is for and are prepared to be compatible with it before 
> their subscription is approved?

[blink] Aren't you the guy who wanted the Lgang archives opened to the
public because "we shouldn't keep any secrets from the community"? You
might not like this much, but good old Bruce is part of that community.
He's one of the people who receives the product of our efforts.

> Well, the archive exists only as a reference so we can write better 
> answers, and in case we need a message we've deleted.  It's not meant to 
> be some fine upstanding thing on its own.  It's not meant to provide 
> profound content for the public; in fact, it's not meant to provide 
> anything to the public at all, which is why it's restricted to 
> subscribers.  I'm mildly concerned about people rifing through the 
> archive who are apparently clueless about what the list is for, and 
> subscribed for who knows what reason.

Why are you concerned? What do you see as the resource that we stand to
lose?

I may not have Rick's fine touch around legal matters, but it general, I
have no problem with anything I've written here coming to light. Not
that I keep any kind of a tight rein on myself, but I'm quite aware of
the level of security (essentially zero) in a standard email transaction
- and that's before it ever gets to this public (let's call a spade a
spade) list.
 
> What part of curmudgeon doesn't he understand?

The "c". Graduating to the "u" will take many years, and is not
guaranteed.

> I was going to ask him what cases of "demeaning" he's found, but since 
> he's mail-blocked some of us I won't bother.

"Demeaning" == "they're meanies, and said nasty words to me!"


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *