What's the "C" for again?

[allen]

I agree with Randy.  I too am getting very tired of multiple e-mail
posts to mostly irrelevant lists with the same msg.  I don't think
opening up discussions to non SCN members should be that big of a 
deal...we can always cancel it later.  It was one thing when it we
were talking about the SCN local forums 4 yrs ago...the world has
changed a lot since then.
allen

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Randy Groves wrote:

> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:10:34 -0700
> From: Randy Groves <randy at scn.org>
> To: scna-board at scn.org, Bill S <bk846 at scn.org>
> Cc: Rich Littleton <be718 at scn.org>, Doug Schuler <douglas at scn.org>,
>     Email Training <em-trng at scn.org>, alboss at scn.org, fundrasing at scn.org,
>     outreach at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scn at scn.org, services at scn.org
> Subject: Re: What's the "C" for again?
> 
> This is the only message I will post to the collected lists above - I am
> getting multiple posts, and I'm sure that others are as well.  What should
> be the appropriate forum for this discussion?
> 
> Rod - I disagree as to the desire about opening up discussions.  We've been
> too cautious I think, partly from a desire to be able to control the
> situation if it DID get out of hand (how do you remove a 'harrassing'
> poster if you don't have any control over their account, or even from
> whence they come?).  We have discussed allowing the forums on the web, but
> only if people signed up.  This is an option.  Or do we just set up the
> forums, and if they get out of control, remove them?
> 
> At this point, I favor the latter course.  Presume from the beginning that
> people will be civil.  There are some valid objections from others on the
> board as to this course of action.  But I think that the experience with
> the limited test that we have run indicates to me that we are perhaps more
> concerned than we ought to be.
> 
> I presume you are talking about WWWBoard or something similar.
> 
> I propose that an agenda item at the next board meeting that we finally
> implement freely accessible discussion groups on SCN.
> 
> -randy
> 
> At 02:47 PM 8/12/98 -0700, Rod Clark wrote:
> >Bill S wrote:
> >> I'm not going to move it there but might suggest that this discussion and
> >> the overall Freenet situation discussion might be moved to the scn.ideas
> >> forum so more people would be able to contribute. Anyone else in favor of
> >> that ?
> >
> >Bill, 
> >
> >   No, because the scn.ideas forum is still a comparatively
> >inaccessible place to post messages, because no one can post a
> >message there without first obtaining a registered SCN user ID (a
> >small fraction of interested local residents), and then still can't
> >post messages except when dialed in to SCN's phone line or telnet
> >address.
> >
> >   Many more people would find it easier to participate if mailing
> >lists like this one (scn at scn.org) and CPSR's local-computer-activists
> >were mirrored on the Web, so that interested people all over the
> >Seattle area could click a mailto link to send a message to the list.
> >We have the technical means to do that. It could be set up tomorrow
> >if people wanted to do it. But so far, I'm not at all sure that
> >anyone in SCN's leadership has a real desire to open up the
> >discussions more widely than among the few people who are now
> >subscribed to the lists.
> >
> >Rod Clark
> >bb615 at scn.org
> >
> >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >scna-board at scn.org   For communication with members of the SCNA
> >Board of Directors.  To unsubscribe, send a message to listowner
> >Stefani Banerian (banerian at scn.org)
> > 
> 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
END