- To: Zhasper <slug@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [activities] Comment on "mailing list policy"
- From: Marghanita da Cruz <marghanita@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:33:41 +1000
- Cc: activities@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Ramin Communications
- Reply-to: marghanita@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030714 Debian/1.4-2
On 08/05/07, *Mary Gardiner* <mary@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, May 08, 2007, Zhasper wrote:
> I think the intent is that the mailing list policy is voted on at
> but not to have it as part of the constitution. If that's not the
> I may have to have stern words with myself.
Even for this, it's worth considering what policy is best set by a
majority vote and which just by the sensible people who run our mailing
I look forward to your input once there's actual detail to comment on...
Is there more than this to the SLUG mailing list policy?
SLUG is primarily a meeting of the minds, a place to learn about and discuss Linux. Members are professionals, students, hobbyists, and many who just like to play and gain knowledge of Linux and Free Software.
This mailing list caters for all levels, those who are new to Linux, wanting to know how to install or setup Linux, to experienced Free Software hackers.
It might be worth looking at other mailing list polices...here is what I
set up for the ICTGOV mailing list
The objective of this forum is to publicise activities and facilitate discussion to enhance the Governance of Information and Communication Technology. All postings should reflect this objective.
The list is hosted by Charles Sturt University (CSU) and in subscribing you agree to abide by the CSU Policy for the use of University Computing and Communication Facilities published at www.csu.edu.au/adminman/per/PER12.rtf
For a myriad of reasons (liability/practicality...) I decided it was
better to make the poster responsible for their actions/posting rather
than me as the list administrator/manager/moderator.
I am not a fan of the parental authority approach of list managers
shutting down topics.
But then I also believe some conflict, some diversion from topic, and
the odd flame war can be useful and informative - though I do concede
many people find it uncomfortable.
Having only recently subscribed to both WSG and SLUG - I have found the
to be more sophisticated/mature. The heavy handed shutting down of
topics on WSG is irritating, must be time consuming, not always
effective, hasn't stop people posting to the list and labelling their
posting off topic.
With regard to disciplinary action....spelling out what other forums
and mechanisms are available to address grievances in SLUG could be
useful. Eg. writing to committee, policy sub-committee, mailing list
sub-committee....these things are hard to get people to actually do and
easy to criticise.
In addition to the Fair Trading constitional stuff (thanks for the
reference),there are some corporate governance standards around
including one on Whistleblowing.
* Good Governance Principles (AS8000)
* Fraud and Corruption Control (AS8001)
* organisational Codes of Conduct (AS8002)
* Corporate Social Responsibility (AS8003)
* Whistle Blower protection programs (AS8004)
Marghanita da Cruz