🚀 go-pugleaf

Charlie,

Thank you for your kind supportive appreciative remarks of the moderator
(me). *blush*

I agree with your comments. We should leave this thread and 'move on'.

In summary, I think we all agree that the list of policies for email and
networks (the first part of the motion 5.04) are well received.  In fact,
I have directly emailed Faye and Paul and have told them I applaud their
work on this.  Personally, I was actually quite surprised to find CIPS
didn't already have something like this place, whereas the only thing I
could find was a policy for its National Office staff and it was created
back when Michele Sura (I miss her) was working for Nat.  Thus, again,
thank you Faye and Paul for making this happen.

However, the second part of the policy which deals with CIPS-L Moderated
is still up in the air.  I have been in email contact with Faye on this.
The intentions of this part of the policy were to help give the moderator
extra 'clout' power (i.e. instead of just 'netiquette' rules we also have
defined CIPS Policy rules).  Unfortunately, that 'clout' could have a
powerful back-spring to it.

However, as it has been said before, CIPS-L is not your standard list.
First, CIPS-L is an 'open discussion' list - no real topics to follow.
Second, it's members are all 'professionals' - Except for a couple of XXX
type emails (which were deleted anyways) I have yet to see any fowl
language on this list. Though some have clearly crossed into the grey area
of 'netiquette' abuse, you (the list members) are a really wonderful
group.  *applauds and loud cheers go out to list members*  Because of
this, I, too, questioned why this part of the motion was needed.

Faye's words to me were: "... the policy is currently being reviewed by
the Society's lawyer and we will certainly ensure that no liability
accrues to you. Depending on the advice we receive, the policy could be
withdrawn or modified. At this time, it has been passed by the Board, but
as it has not been (officially) published to the membership, I would not
consider it to be in force."

Thus, it appears that this policy is NOT yet 'written in stone'.  And I'm
sure the Communications Committee are still open to positive constructive
'improvement' suggestions regarding improving this policy (BTW, 'Trash it'
is NOT a PCI suggestion).  My understanding is this is true of all
policies CIPS have in place.

However, Please do not direct these suggestions to this list.  Direct them
to the Communications Committee.  I am confident that Faye will address
this list with any changes to the policy and will let us know when it will
be in force.

I vote we should end this thread until we hear back from the Society's
lawyer.

Doug Swift
CIPS Fredericton Section

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, C & L Whitfield wrote:

> Dorothy - Good comments but I don't think they are entirely  relevant to the
> current issue
> CIPS-L is  currently and has been for some time a moderated list and it  has
> a very good moderator who has I believe done a superb job of filtering out
> most of the "junk". (and who I hope doesn't feel compelled to quit).  I
> remember when the list was unmoderated and we started getting SPAMMED to
> death. The moderator has stopped that  like RAID (kills "spam"  dead in its
> tracks!)
>
> The one issue that is relevant is the question of filtering "flaming". I
> think it gets tough for a moderator to make a judgement of what is "flaming"
> versus what is  a relevant message with  a small portion where the writer
> got "carried away". I would strongly prefer to leave the policing of those
> types of messages to the other participants of the list -- the moderator
> should only take action if someone consistently ignores the wishes of other
> list subscribers and continues with offensive material -- and in that case
> the solution is "exile" (for varying periods of time dependent on the
> severity of the violation)  NOT having the moderator burdened with reading a
> lot of material in detail and being the "judge, jury & executioner" on the
> material for a specific post. (and being in the position that Robert Bacal
> reports where you will inevitably and continually be criticized for your
> decisions and a lot of energy and emotion will be wasted or something that
> could easily have been avoided)
>
> Enough has been  said I think on this issue  and I'm going to "move on".
> This is a good list -- there is lots of good discussion including this
> thread which is valuable in trying to find common ground out of a wide
> diversity of views & values). Let's focus on making it stonger and a better
> place to exhange ideas.
> For your consideration - Charlie Whitfield
>
> >Here are comments from an outsider of CIPS -- as I mentioned, I asked for
> information on how other groups manage
> >their list serves. I find Robert Bacal's comment that unmoderated lists
> that are cluttered and with much flaming
> >occurs usually decay and die. A word of warning we should remember. I know
> I have felt like leaving CIPS-L recently
> >- because of the belligerence of a few and the flaming that has occurred.
> >
> >A word to the wise, I suggest.
> >
> >Dorothy Milburn-Smith
...snip...