>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]