[tlug] Banns and other marital strife in mailing lists

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

I think it's time we had a reality check here.  Arguably this should
go on the -admin list only, but since the thread I'm responding to is
on the main list, I'll repond here, too.  Followups set to tlug-admin
(except that I think the ML software munges it back :-( ).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some background about recent events
===================================

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Kidd <clowns@example.com> writes:

    Robert> I really think some explaining needs to be done and an
    Robert> apology to Scott is definitely warranted (but not
    Robert> expected).

In explanation, TLUG is a club which provides services to its members
and the public, using resources contributed by the members.  Its
services are provided at the club's option, and may be withdrawn at
the club's option.  Since there is no formal definition of "member",
it's kind of hard to poll the membership.  However, as Chris points
out, 5 *plonk*s is pretty close to a social movement.

I oppose bans (including spam and virus filters) on principle, but I
have 100Mbps access and use procmail, TMDA, and Gnus to read mail.
People without broadband and advanced MUAs may prefer their ISPs and
list admins to do filtering, and I think they should be allowed to
make that choice as a practical matter.  In practice, Chris, as admin,
saw what he considered a problem, suggested a remedy, and implemented
it as authorized.

This action was undemocratic?  I suppose.  _But we don't know how to
define "democracy" here._  The whole point of the organizational form
"open subscription mailing list" is to avoid formal membership lists,
which makes any conventional notion of "franchise" moot.  If you have
a good idea to implement "democracy", bring it up (on tlug-admin).

Apology?  In this particular case, no apology is required.  Scott is
_not_ a newbie; he has been shown the ropes, and he knows how they are
used, from personal experience.  He chose to stick his head in the
noose.  As he did in the past, several times.  (If you want to know,
the public parts for TLUG are in the list archives.  For the private
parts, ask him.  The stories are not mine to tell.)

>>>>> "Darren" == Darren Cook <darrenj@example.com> writes:

    Darren> in particular the people who've been wasting this list's
    Darren> bandwidth with emails that just say "*plonk*", which I
    Darren> assume is some inside joke.

It is the common way to announce that you're filtering a poster.  It
is done in public as the strongest (because final) way of saying "you
_should_ know better by now, but if you refuse to learn, I'm not going
to listen."  Further, it suggests that others not respond, either, as
it only encourages further misuse of the channel.

    Darren> It's ironic as all the complainers have also posted
    Darren> off-topic or rambling messages before,

Not really.  That's not what elicited *plonk*-intensity objections.

    Darren> and all are experienced enough users to know how to set up
    Darren> a killfile.

*chuckle*  I guess you now see the humor in this?

    Darren> Personally, while the signal in Scott's posts are often
    Darren> overwhelmed by the noise, he does usually start threads
    Darren> that are educational.

*shrug*  A good practical reason for opposing bans.  And a good reason
for using a public *plonk*.  Some people (believe it or not) actually
value the opinion of such as Chris, Jonathan, and myself on these
issues.  If the OP is in our killfiles, those who want to hear our
opinions are made aware that they have to do something to bring the
issue to our attention.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementing "Politeness"
=========================

If you value "conventionally defined politeness" highly, and wonder
why you don't seem to see much of it from certain quarters of TLUG, be
aware that most of its "answer guys and gals" come from a different
culture, and define "politeness" (or at least "courtesy") rather
differently.  (Cf http://tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html,
and the Netiquette FAQ[1].)  Just as the Japanese define courtesy
differently from Americans.

There _are_ some conventionally polite experts on the list (Alberto
Tomita, Jim Tittsler are leading examples, Ben Gertzfeld, Frank
Bennett).  But how many answers have you seen from them recently?
Now, count how many answers you have seen from "Ye Olde Hackkers"
recently.  Do you really want the Answer Department to go away?

I'm not telling those who are uncomfortable with traditional hacker
concepts of courtesy to "go away."  I am warning you, though, that we
might.  The "Hacker Brigade" all own servers and know how to run web
sites and mailing lists.  We know that we're not particularly well-
liked by a fairly large minority in TLUG, but we hang around because
there are many people we like here (including most members of the
Politeness Police), and the feeling is mostly reciprocated.  However,
if _we_ feel we're not wanted, it's easy for _us_ to move.  Can you
say the same?  What does that tell you about what TLUG "is"?

Note well: that's not a threat.  We don't _want_ to go.  Not least
because the odds are it would decimate TLUG, which most of us value
highly for its past contributions.  As a matter of fact, there have
been a couple of points in the past where the de facto leadership
considered whether the organization should change its charter from
"all users," because the user population had changed in ways we found
uncomfortable.  As a matter of preference and service, we decided to
remain open.  But if we'd changed the charter and raised the bar to
"power users, admins, and hackers," who could complain?  It was our
labor, connections, and money that created the list, the server, and
the meetings.

Years later, the membership _has_ changed.  It would be unfair and
wrong (not to mention no longer possible) for us to take TLUG back
where it was even three years ago, let alone six.  Mostly, the hacker
faction doesn't want to.  But we could easily create a new group, and
devote our attention to that.  In fact, we already have ... but for
the moment it's more or less inactive.  TLUG is more fun, and more
opportunities to serve or to learn.

So I am not saying that Le Ancien Hacquer can't learn new tricks or a
spot of courtesy.  But I think that those who have joined the group
more recently (say < 3 years) and don't have the news.admin.policy or
kernel-activists experience to grok "hacker mores" should consider the
possibility that maybe we do have our own brand of courtesy.  Don't
ask us to "be courteous"; by our own lights, we (mostly) are.  Try
learning what _our_ mores define as courtesy, and then push for better
integration with your conventional mores.  On a "case by case" basis,
and as a question: "Was that necessary?"  In public, if you're sure of
your ground.

Speaking for myself, in many cases, I would honestly have to say "it
wasn't."  But in most of those, I could also say "nor was it out of
bounds, given the context."  If you want to change that balance, you
might try assuming that I _do_ respect others and treat them with
courtesy by some definition.  Then suggest that adjusting my sense of
courtesy would make my posts more effective.  I know from experience
this works on me.

I imagine similar strategies would work on pretty much all of the
unconventionally polite members.  Meet us halfway?


Footnotes: 
[1]  I guess I don't dare mention http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html.

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.