>To tag on to what Eric just said, it might be that broad-ranging, more
>philosophical discussions would ideally be taken up on the new newsgroup
>comp.mail.list-admin.policy.
>
>-- Roger Burns   [log in to unmask]
 
Nice for those with access to usenet.  Not so useful for those who do not.
 
Listowner policy has been a topic on lstown-l often enough.  Why not the
philosophy or philosophies behind whatever policies we have?  We need not
come to a concensus.  My point is more that reading about how others
formulate their policies and why can be very useful you are faced with the
need to make decisions -- for example, whether or not to remove an
obstreperous listmember, when, and why.
 
Decisions like that, made in haste and anger, could backfire -- all the
more if the unsubscribee decides to make trouble by applying directly to
the computer centre where your list is hosted or to your own postmaster, or
if the obnox has friends or supporters on the list.  Being able to explain
calmly what your rationale was, what your policy is, how you have been
consistent in applying it, and the like might come in very handy at that
point.  Ad hoc explanations do not always work as intended, because they
are often not thought through very well.
 
This is not to argue that the topic MUST appear on this list, or even that
it should be deliberately made a thread.  I merely present my arguments for
supporting Douglas Winship's position.
 
One final note: the objection was raised that this is a list for TECHNICAL
matters involving listownership.  Is this so?  I do not have a copy of the
charter of this list, but my impression was that lstown-l was for
discussion of all matters relating to listownership, including but not
exclusively the technical bits.  Am I wrong?
 
Mario Rups
[log in to unmask]