SEELANGS Administrivia - (was Re: List Policy)

[Alex Rudd]

On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 17:15:46 -0400 Benjamin Sher said:
>I have requested the owners of Seelangers to clarify their policy on
>postings in general. Until I hear from them, I shall refrain from posting
>any messages. I shall consider myself bound by their decision and
>instructions. Thank you.

Dear SEELANGers,

I've received a request from Mr. Sher to clarify list policy "on
postings in general."  Rather than reply only to him, I think it
important that you all get to see what I have to say on the subject.

Let me preface my comments by saying this:  Some of you may not be
familiar with me.  I've been running SEELANGS since March of 1993,
but I've never been an active participant in the discussions.  In
general, I keep a low profile here, mostly because I'm too busy to
do otherwise.  I have a full-time job (which has nothing to do with
anything remotely Slavic) and also run two other LISTSERV lists,
both of which are much higher-volume lists than SEELANGS.  The
result is, I hardly ever have time to read this list, and I rarely
do.  I remain list owner because the CUNY administration requires
that there be one and I consider SEELANGS a valuable resource for
you.  If I quit, chances are the list would either die or be forced
to find a new home.  Since I'm very familiar with the LISTSERV
software, it's not a huge burden on me to continue as list owner.
However, although some of you will remember an occasional post
from me offering posting suggestions, I've never actually defined
policy for this list past "no flames allowed."

I have several policies on my other lists and enforce them using
the capabilities of the LISTSERV software.  Violators are set to
NOPOST, rendering them unauthorized to post until they acknowledge
their evident, but usually unwitting, faux pas, and say they'll
try to avoid a recurrence.  The policies I use on my other lists
are designed to maximize usability and enjoyment while protecting
the lists from posting behaviors which are ultimately detrimental
and wasteful of our resources.

If SEELANGS were subject to the same guidelines I use on my other
lists, Mr. Sher would already have violated all of them (except
for the "no flames" rule).

Just for the sake of explanation, I'm going to show you here the
policies for my most popular list (averaging 50+ posts per day).
The identity of the list is unimportant, so where the list name
appears below I'll "X" it out.  Here they are... I'll continue
my commentary below:

--- Begin ---

List Policy Regarding Frequency of Posts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a limit on XXXXXX-L of 65 messages per day.  Because there
are hundreds of subscribers, and in the interest of giving everyone
a chance, there is also a limit on the number of posts per day per
person.  No subscriber may post more than once per day to the list.
If you would like to respond to more than one post in a single day,
consider that you can combine your responses into a single message
or reply off-list directly to the original sender if appropriate.

There is one exception to this policy:  Bulletins, such as announcements
of new XXXXXX-related resources or up-coming conferences, will not be
counted towards the poster's daily limit.

Policy Regarding Personal Replies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because each message sent to the list address is distributed to
all list members, personal messages and replies should not be posted.
If you wish to reply only to the original sender of a post, make
sure your reply is directed to that person and not to the list
address (XXXXXXXX at cunyvm.cuny.edu).  If you wish to contact only
one subscriber, yet do not know that person's personal e-mail address,
do not use the list address to write him.  Instead make use of the
SCAN XXXXXX-L command or write the list owners for assistance.

Example:  SCAN XXXXXX-L Smith

VERY IMPORTANT:  When you just use the Reply feature of your e-mail
program while reading a XXXXXX-L post, your reply is directed back
to XXXXXX-L, *not* to the person who posted.  Your failure to
realize this fact is what gets most people in trouble when it comes
to sending personal replies to the list address.

Policy Regarding Quoting Text From Original Messages
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because all posts to XXXXXX-L are archived, and because disk
space is a finite resource, list members are asked to pay
close attention when they reply to messages on the list and
quote text.  Including portions of original messages is fine,
as long as it's done to provide context for the reader and
is done selectively.  However, quoting entire original
messages within the body of replies, when the original messages
are more than just a few lines, is prohibited.  Not only
does it fill up our disk space with extraneous text, but
those list members receiving XXXXXX-L in DIGEST format are
forced to read through the same messages three and four
times.

Policy Regarding Violations of XXXXXX-L Policies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because the above policies are in place for the good of the list,
and because general admonishments to the list membership do not
usually succeed in altering behavior deemed detrimental to the
list, action will be taken individually against list members
violating XXXXXX-L policies.

Upon noticing that someone has posted something to the list
that he ought not to have, such as a message containing great
amounts of extraneous quoted text or a personal reply meant
only for the original sender, that person will be set to NOPOST,
meaning that he will continue to receive mail from the list but
will not be able to post (and he will be notified of same).

This policy should not be construed as a punitive measure imposed
on individual list members.  Rather, it's being implemented to
ensure that individuals are made aware of their actions before
having the opportunity to repeat the same mistake(s).

If you ever receive notice that your subscription options have
been set to NOPOST, you should contact the list owners at:
XXXXXX-L-Request at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
and request the reason.

--- End ---

In addition to the above policies, I ask subscribers to my lists
never to post attachments to the list address.  Although LISTSERV
is a great program and is capable of distributing messages which
are MIME or base64 encoded, not all list members are able to
read or decode those attachments.  Especially on an academic
list such as SEELANGS, many subscribers are still using mainframe
computers and operating systems such as VM and VMS which don't
have mail programs that can handle attachments.  Plus, attachments
are binary in nature, and that means that when they're transmitted,
they're automatically converted to a whole lot of garbage ascii
text.  A modern mail reader can convert that back to binary on the
receiving end, but we all have another problem along the way:
LISTSERV archives all posts as plain text, so all those attachments
get archived as a lot of garbage, meaning our disk space fills up
at a mich higher-than-normal rate.  If you weren't already aware,
all posts to SEELANGS are archived and stored on disk at the CUNY
computer center.  Any subscriber to SEELANGS can search the archives
and I consider that one of the best things about the list.  But
that disk space is a resource made available free of charge by
CUNY and it comes with a real cost (to them).  Everything possible
we can do to slow the archival of extraneous text should be done,
and that includes NOT posting attachments.

So back to the point at hand... Mr. Sher wants me to clarify
SEELANGS' policies "on posting in general."  Here it is in a
nutshell:

I will not have time to monitor SEELANGS at a level effective
enough to enable me to enforce any policies.  For that reason,
I'm not going to enact any at this time.  *HOWEVER*... if Mr.
Sher, or anyone else on the list, feels the need to conform to
guidelines of some sort, I suggest the following:

Hang on to the ones quoted above (from my other list) and try to
adhere to them.  For the most part, they're just comprised of
netiquette and common sense.

Non-sequitor:  As of today, June 6, 1997, we've upgraded to the most
recent version of the LISTSERV software on LISTSERV at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
(version 1.8c).  I hope to put together a post to the list in the
next few days which highlights some great LISTSERV features of which
I'll bet most of you are not availing yourselves.

Please don't reply to this post on the list.  If you must reply,
or if you have questions about SEELANGS or LISTSERV and its
commands, write me directly at my address below.

Oh, and if there are any other LISTSERV list owners subscribed to
SEELANGS, please make yourselves known to me.  :)

Thanks.

- Alex Rudd, list owner of SEELANGS
  seelangs-request at cunyvm.cuny.edu