Origin of the "background checks?" thread (big)
Kurt Cockrum
kurt
Tue Oct 26 22:24:56 PDT 1999
References: <199910221840.LAA01108 at scn.org>,
<199910212047.NAA16931 at scn.org>
This is an attempt to respond for Melissa's recent call to port the
back-ground-check thread to the <scn at scn.org> list. I digestified it
so people can get some background and a sense of what ground has been
covered. All the principals have agreed to have this posted. You
could regard them as the coauthors of the collective work. When/if
anybody replies to this *please* *do* *not* let your mailer append this
to your posting, or you will surely be reincarnated as an intestinal
parasite!
It all seems to begin begin with my message declassifying the thread on
the hardware list because of topic-drift, and questioning the proposed
policy. The post it responds to contains sensitive material and so is
not included. Although it wouldn't bother me much if if somebody else
divulged it :)
I have edited out all the .sig-stuff superfluous to ID'ing the actors,
and all the "you said" stuff, where it isn't part of a
point-by-point-style argument (typically the stuff appended as a block
to the body of the message, prefixed with ">"). What remains is, I
hope, a reasonably accurate transcription of the conversation up to
now. I think the rest of the coauthors agree with this.
Joel has reminded us of a policy that apparently exists that seems to
prohibit e-mail posted to the <hardware at scn.org> list from being
forwarded outside the list (it's in this digest, in fact; see
<Pine.SUN.3.96.991019145523.3019B-100000 at scn>). I think the intent of
this policy is to restrict the scope of distribution of confidential or
sensitive technical or personal information rather than comments and
opinions on overall SCN policy that occur within the list. In fact,
the post I respond to that started this thing falls under that
sensitive category.
So some political opinions expressed on the hardware list that I think
are parts of the thread are being posted in this digest, since they
reveal no confidential information, and could be posted with no editing
of their content. It probably won't hurt to point out that the dual
objectives of free political discussion and technical confidentiality
are preserved -- which does not violate any policy, but helps fulfil
our mission.
Without further ado...
<thread>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kurt Cockrum <kurt at scn.org>
Message-Id: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:53:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: be718 at scn.org, hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org
Subject: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: ...
But we aren't talking about *that* one anymore, so the CONFIDENTIAL tag
should go away. Accuracy in classification :) and I think that topic
proper is done with anyway...
Joel said:
>THE FUTURE:
>The HR committee is working on the issue of background checks, which
>are now being recommended for all volunteers who work with seniors,
>children, the disabled, and other fragile populations.
Jeez, this is really going over the top.
What is being looked for here?
> Note that this
>may include almost every SCN volunteer involved in teaching, help desk,
>registration, system administration, and outreach. This will also require
>that we maintain a confidential file on each volunteer.
Oh, brother. You are setting yourself up for all sorts of future trouble,
I see. In order to avoid one kind of trouble, you are inviting another kind.
And you are going to plow on ahead because you "have to do *something*!".
That's what I see operating here.
While the goals might be worthwhile, the method seems counterproductive
and almost guaranteed to land you in court over something, very likely
a disgruntled volunteer disputing the truth of an action that SCN did.
In other words, it seems likely to produce the results you'd most like
to avoid. It's like a bump in a rug. Step on it, and it just shifts
position. So stepping on the bump is the wrong approach, and so in the
same way is this.
I realize that this doesn't point to a solution but instead just points
out defects in the proposed plan. But it seems to me that if you
policy-makers knew what you were doing instead of just *thinking* you
know what you're doing, you wouldn't come up with plans that have
the things I criticize, in such great abundance. It looks like to me
that you need to iterate some more on the plan.
Maybe you all do know what you are doing and I just can't recognize it.
But I keep seeing the little things popping up that elsewhere,
seem to have resulted, by gradual accretion, in the Pacifica
Network getting into the sorry state it's currently in.
People involved in that project were sounding alarms for years
to no avail.
>I am working with all committees / team leaders on this issue, to
>ensure that we have appropriate criteria and guidelines in place.
Confidentiality from outsiders and people without a need-to-know is
important. I hope this doesn't mutate into the sort of thing where
action is taken against people based on "confidential" information that
that person can't review. It also should not become a catch-basin
for unsubstantiated allegations and rumors,
effectively extending their lifetime.
Hint to the designers of this system: learn the concepts of "life-cycle"
and "half-life" (the operative factor might be something other than "half";
I'm referring to a decaying concept, where a piece of information isn't
just a hunk of bytes but has attributes such as timeliness and relevance,
that vary over time). Now *this* is where strong process is needed,
because the concepts are more abstract than just squirreling away
information, and harder to do effectively.
Another hint to system designers: having secrets is bad policy. It
should be minimized.
Jeez, I hope we don't make people start posting bonds!
And I hope people keep a sense of proportion about this.
--kurt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 12:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Seattle Astronomical Society <sas at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: Re: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: ...
In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991018124851.24207A-100000 at scn>
I tend to agree with Kurt - when I read through Joel's message, I thought
it sounded like a LOT more Big-Brother-watching-you than is needed in an
organization like SCN. Granted, we don't want to turn anyone who shows up
loose with the keys to the system, but this sort of proposal really seems
way excessive. Let's limit Big Brother's presence on SCN to the CGI
program that keeps track of system operations!
Ken Applegate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 16:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chanh Ong <chanh at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: Re: was CONFIDENTIAL in re OPS: einstein
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991018124851.24207A-100000 at scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.10.9910181628230.6426-100000 at scn>
I agree with both Kurt and Ken. People come to volunteer at SCN
because they have something to offer and to give. In return, their
privacy get violated. SUCH A DEAL!!
^ Chanh Ong (SCN)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Littleton <be718 at scn.org>
To: Kurt Cockrum <kurt at scn.org>
cc: hardware at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org,
Seattle Community Network Association <scna at scn.org>, jw4 at scn.org,
scna-board at scn.org
Subject: What the ? .......
In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991018185401.15108E-100000 at scn>
Background checks? What next, strip searches for e-mail students? Then
AIDS tests for any volunteers who might sneeze on someone. After that,
fingerprinting. Pretty soon, we're looking at policies that would
make the CIA envious.
Any background check policy that exempts some SCNA members (e.g. board
members) is going to (a) alienate all those as-yet-untapped volunteers we
keep predicting are going to sign up so SCNA can get in gear; and (b) make
us vulnerable as the dickens to a lawsuit. Oooooooeeeeee!
Suggestion. Before we start organizing like we are a subdivision of IBM
doing military research on weapons of mass distruction, why don't we start
focussing on the community, esp. our e-mail.
* We are down to 6 or 7 active volunteers. We could use more.
* Hardware is strapped too.
* We are short enough people to run the I.P. part of SCN.
* Our board is running below capacity.
Why are we using all this effort to (1) restrict communication inside
SCNA, (2) tighten requirments for e-mail students, (3) tighten up security
policy, (4) turn a volunteer organization into a severely vertical and
hierarchical organization?
Let's get volunteers. Let's treat them like friends, not enemies. Let's
communicate with them, not just pass rules controlling them.
You old timers. Is this how you saw SCN developing?
Shudder,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Ware IV <jw4 at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: OPS: Background Checks
In-Reply-To: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991018223555.29739J-100000 at scn>
Dear Kurt, and Ken,
THANK YOU for your thoughtful missives on this subject.
When I say that background checks are "now being recommended" for specific
categories of volunteer positions, I mean that is the advice that we SCN
have received from our consultant, Nan Hawthorne, and have heard widely
endorsed within the community of folks who manage volunteers for a living.
They do so based upon presumably competent legal advice. We need to work
on this issue, and we are, as I stated above. And IF and when we do decide
to do something, it will be evenly applied to all, new and old.
Regards,
Joel Ware, IV SCNA Volunteer Coordinator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kurt Cockrum <kurt at scn.org>
Message-Id: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org>
To: be718 at scn.org, hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org,
scna at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org
Subject: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements
References: <199910181853.LAA11840 at scn.org>,
<Pine.SUN.3.96.991018124851.24207A-100000 at scn>,
<Pine.SUN.4.10.9910181628230.6426-100000 at scn>,
<Pine.SUN.3.96.991018185401.15108E-100000 at scn>
Joel said:
>[...]
>When I say that background checks are "now being recommended" for specific
>categories of volunteer positions, I mean that is the advice that we SCN
>have received from our consultant, Nan Hawthorne, and have heard widely
>endorsed within the community of folks who manage volunteers for a living.
Be that as it may,
is Nan operating within any boundaries or have we handed *her* the store?
*Do* you people on excomm, scna-board and governance and the like
have any critical faculties or are you just taking in, wide-eyed,
all that she says?
We presumably are all supposed to trust you but I wonder
what road you are leading us down.
I thot Nan was a volunteer. Am I wrong?
Do people ask *her* the reasoning behind her recommendations the
way it happens on say the hardware list (not that I think that's
bad; quite the opposite
-- it's an excellent reality-check)? Is she able to cope with challenges
and debate
the way people do on this list or does that put you in danger of losing
her services?
(if so you are already in trouble, because you are *stuck* in the same sort of
crucial dependency pattern that *we* are trying to work on here in the
hardware list -- and it looks like we are way ahead of you, in fact --
Will you require assistance once we get our policies working? :)
>They do so based upon presumably competent legal advice.
It's one thing to get "competent legal advice" from somebody who's solidly
behind the SCN effort and is on the same page, whether they are a volunteer
or we have to pay them.
It's quite another to take generic one-size-fits-all
advice out of a cookbook "Legal Handbook for Nonprofits" written by a
"presumably competent" lawyer with a CYA worldview. We deserve better
than that. Is this not agreed?
It's an area where legal world-view counts *strongly*, as much as "legal
competence" which should only be a *minimal* requirement.
Rich said:
>You old timers. Is this how you saw SCN developing?
Nope. Not me.
Joel said:
>[...] We need to work
>on this issue, and we are, as I stated above. And IF and when we do decide
>to do something, it will be evenly applied to all, new and old.
Well, I'm not drinking any Kool-ade. Or taking any pee-tests.
So there! :)
--kurt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com>
From: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" <scoth at scn.org>
To: <be718 at scn.org>, <hardware at scn.org>, <jw4 at scn.org>, <scna-board at scn.org>,
<scna at scn.org>, <volunteer at scn.org>, <volunteers at scn.org>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991018223555.29739J-100000 at scn>
Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:22:20 -0700
Now that Kurt is cross-posting lists, I'll expand my questions and comments,
too. I have retained the previous content for partial background.
I think the question becomes how closely which volunteer works with a
particular person or group, such that we need to have background checks.
There are volunteers (not limited to SCN in this point) who work very
closely and for long periods of time in sensitive settings, where they may
be able to abuse their responsibilities. Such places would be group homes,
shelters, schools, and so on. Volunteers in such settings must be checked
for at least legal reasons, if not (more importantly) for safety reasons.
The organizations who take them on are responsible for conducting those
investigations and keeping them on file, confidential, and current.
What's the typical exposure of our volunteer staff to fragile populations?
What's the expected scope of such background checks; i.e. criminal searches,
credit, medical? What's the scope of volunteers affected; i.e. operations,
teaching volunteers, IP's? What are the recommended criteria in order to
pass the checks? What's the expected cost of conducting the investigation
and retaining the confidential information? How will the investigation be
conducted, and by whom? How and where will the information be stored, and
who will have access to it, and for what reasons? Will the volunteer be
notified when and if that information is viewed after the initial
investigation?
Beyond that, what are our real risks and exposures with our current
volunteer process? Have we had incidents that have sparked the discussion?
Have we had suspicions? Are we (SCNA) being specifically asked about the
background of our volunteers, such that we have become aware of the need?
The bottom line for many people will be: "can I volunteer in any meaningful
way without needing a background investigation?" Perhaps we are looking at
a Special Needs Volunteer Group, members of which need to pass muster, and
who will then provide volunteer services to special needs groups.
Remember that we are essentially an ISP, non-profit and primarily reliant on
volunteers. We provide educational services as a benefit to our user
community. We are not a central provider of care or assistance to specific
groups. Our educational services are an adjunct to our function as an ISP.
If we are specifically concerned about specific groups of users, then we
might consider addressing that need separately from our general processes.
Scot
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chanh Ong <chanh at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
cc: be718 at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scna at scn.org,
volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org
Subject: Re: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements
In-Reply-To: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.10.9910191435320.29743-100000 at scn>
Back ground check should be disclosed to all volunteers so that
let them decide if they want to subject to this hasle so not.
They volunteer to come to help SCN. They did not get hire to work here.
^ Chanh Ong (SCN)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <19991019221014.19784.rocketmail at web112.yahoomail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marc Russell <mrussell at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: OPS: onerous volunteer screening requirements
To: hardware at scn.org
Kurt,
I believe you've summarized all the necessary points a
background check should cover, at least for people
operating within the context of the OPS group. :)
--- Kurt Cockrum <kurt at scn.org> wrote:
[snip]
> operating within any boundaries or have we
> handed [snip] him/her the store?
> *Do* you [snip]
> have any critical?
[snip]
> Is [snip] she/he able to
> cope with challenges
> and debate
> the way people do on this list or does that put you
> in danger of losing
> [snip] his/her services?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 15:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Ware IV <jw4 at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: OPS: Re: onerous volunteer screening requirements
In-Reply-To: <199910191958.MAA05966 at scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991019145523.3019B-100000 at scn>
Gentlemen:
We have a policy that items posted to hardware stay there.
Several have violated it recently.
Now let's abide by it.
-Joel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 23:52:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Littleton <be718 at scn.org>
To: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" <scoth at scn.org>
cc: hardware at scn.org, jw4 at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, scna at scn.org,
volunteer at scn.org, volunteers at scn.org
Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks
In-Reply-To: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991019234605.23245G-100000 at scn>
Scott,
Well reasoned.
I, for one, have not heard of any grounds for doing background checks. I
suspect that this background check question has come up because the board
is looking at getting liability insurance. The more loopholes that can be
closed, the more likely will be the low insurance rate.
However, I think the issue borders on extreme, precisely because (a) we
don't deal with fragile populations in fiduciary circumstances and (b) we
do almost all of our contact work in groups which lessens the chance some
odd duck will behave oddly.
However, my main concern is that, again, the decision-makers are off on a
tangent dealing with secondary or tertiary matters rather than making SCN
go. (more on that later. Stay tuned.)
Rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Littleton <be718 at scn.org>
X-Sender: be718 at scn
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: Re: OPS: Re: onerous volunteer screening requirements
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991019145523.3019B-100000 at scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991019235516.23245H-100000 at scn>
Hardware,
This warning from Joel is precisely the abuse of the narrow distribution
policy recently proposed in hardware.
Joel has done this sort of indefinite warning before. What messages
violated this policy of his? Does he mean the background check
discussion. Who knows. But, he can use the vague warning as a first
warning and then drop the ax at some later event.
Actually, I think the background check issue did NOT start in hardware.
Can that be checked?
But, anyway, Joel's approach would cut off posting the background check
discussion that is including hardware people.
While it makes great sense to restrict messages about settings, technical
vulnerabilities, etc., that rationale has no connection with a discussion
about volunteer background checks.
Don't be comfortable with this sort of official censureship. The hardware
policy should distinguish between truly sensitive info and relevant OTHER
content.
Maybe we need to form and SCN ACLU group for internal communication on
SCN... Hmmmmmmmm.
Rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id: <199910200824.BAA05375 at scn4.scn.org>
From: "Stan Protigal" <bk269 at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 01:10:20 -0700
Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks
In-reply-to: <003501bf1a6f$aa331630$078cc5ce at thurman.com>
I'll send some guaranteed pure urine samples. That way we can have our
background checks and make everyone happy.
And just were are we going to get background checks from, anyhow? Do we
ask to inspect the disk drive of a volunteer's home computer? I dont'
think the data we need exists.
- s
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Seattle Astronomical Society <sas at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org
Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks
In-Reply-To: <199910200824.BAA05375 at scn4.scn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991020105049.20179A-100000 at scn>
? Hire private investigators? Bring in the FBI or CIA? I hear the former
KGB is kind of hard up for work these days - maybe we could contract it
out to them! :>)
Ken Applegate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <002e01bf1b2c$6a559d90$078cc5ce at thurman.com>
From: "Scot Harkins on SCN.org" <scoth at scn.org>
To: <hardware at scn.org>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991020105049.20179A-100000 at scn>
Subject: Re: OPS: Re: Background Checks
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:53:33 -0700
Hmmmm....
> ? Hire private investigators? Bring in the FBI or CIA? I hear the former
> KGB is kind of hard up for work these days - maybe we could contract it
> out to them! :>)
I don't know. The former KGB's info gathering taKtics were, to say the
least, sometimes a bit, uh, stressful. We might want our volunteers to
emerge as much the same people as before the investigation.
Plus you never know if, when they poke you with an umbrella, if they're just
poking you or trying to insert a poisonous micro-capsule.
I'll bet they already have a mole in our organization! Maybe they shouldn't
be hired since they would cover their own mole.
Hyjinks Hysterical Security Service. Background checks on the fly, DNA
logging, ID cards, free suckers.
Scot Harkins (KA5KDU) | Systems Administrator, Thurman Ind, Bothell, WA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy Groves <randy at scn.org>
To: hardware at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org,
volunteers at scn.org, SCN Voicemail <vm at scn.org>,
SCN help <help at scn.org>
Subject: OPS: Re: Background Checks
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991019234605.23245G-100000 at scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.10.9910211126520.26843-100000 at scn>
Please note the extent of this posting - and PLEASE don't respond to the
total set of lists. I am posting this broadly to stimulate discussion IN
each of the lists, NOT massively across all lists. I don't know what the
appropriate venue is for this discussion - perhaps the volunteers list?
OK - everybody take a deep breath and back up two steps. Time out.
NOBODY, as far as I know, is talking about instituting across-the-board
background checks in this organization. If they are, then I'd like to
hear who it is, because I, for one, would totally disagree.
That said, there are some realities out there. Organizations get sued.
People get sued. Whatever you think of the validity of some of the suits
or even the concept of suing, it is a reality that we, as an organization
need to be aware of.
And there have been discussions, on different levels, about the
POSSIBILITY of requiring checks for CERTAIN roles within the organization.
At this point, there has been NO change in our defacto policy of NOT
requiring any checks.
As I see it right now there are only a few possible scenarios.
1) We may need to have background checks of board members for the
purposes of getting insurance. We don't know this to be a fact. Far from
it. But it is a fact that we have been researching board insurance. And
it also may be the case that it will be difficult, if not impossible to
attract the caliber of folks that we desire if we DON'T have insurance.
2) For positions with financial responsibility (ie, at least treasurer -
MAYBE the full board) - this is probably a requirement.
3) For those that will be dealing face-to-face with fragile populations
(and this wouldn't be restricted to fiduciary circumstances) (i.e. youth,
disabled, elderly) where severly negative things could happen if
inappropriate use of the implicit trust of the relationship took place.
It may be appropriate to require some sort of checks in these instances,
especially if the downside is serious damage to either the member of the
population or to the organization - or both probably. It DOES seem to be
the case that a majority of volunteer-based organizations are already
doing this, or heading in this direction. I think this is an open topic
for discussion. This is where we have been depending upon the obvious
expertise of Nan and others to help us formulate a possible set of
policies.
4) For those who deal with our users' private information (addresses,
phone numbers, etc.) There is probably a good argument for checking this
group.
5) We need to discuss in Operations what kind of qualifications we need
to require for sysadmins with access to root. This is also a position of
responsibility. We've worked out so far with our defacto process. Will
this work for the future? Have we just been lucky? I don't propose
background checks as part of this, necessarily, but Operations needs to
decide.
I know that the character of our organization is very much on the 'freedom
of expression and speech' end of the spectrum. I know that there are
quite a few of us that look askance at any hint of 'Big Brother'. But
let's get real folks. Would it do us as an organization any good to
appoint a treasurer who had a record for embezzlement at a different
organization? Or have a person who was convicted of illegally using his
relationship with an elderly client to rob them blind be put in a
situation of trust with the same type of folks? I know that these are
drastic examples, and there is also an argument AGAINST taking people's
past lives as evidence of their present ones (I mean - think of how hard
it must be for an ex-con to get a job), but I think that we have to be a
BIT pragmatic here.
I really don't think that it is appropriate to consider applying these
standards across-the-board. But I think that we need to discuss
these issues, and craft a set of policies that are ones that we can
live with, AND ones that will allow this organization to do its work
without unduly having to worry about what its volunteers might be up
to, OR whether a suit is just around the corner.
I also don't want to get so paranoid that all of our work is
tainted. After all, this is SUPPOSED to be fun, right?
OK - I've had my rant. Like I said - I don't know what venue is
appropriate but let's talk this over - in a rational way, please.
-randy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve and Melissa Guest <guests at scn.org>
To: Randy Groves <randy at scn.org>
cc: hardware at scn.org, scna-board at scn.org, volunteer at scn.org,
volunteers at scn.org, SCN Voicemail <vm at scn.org>,
SCN help <help at scn.org>
Subject: OPS: re: background checks - venue for further discussion - scn at scn.org?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.4.10.9910211126520.26843-100000 at scn>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.991021123915.22348A-100000 at scn>
Randy - thanks for sending the note.
Venue for rest of discussion - I suggest we move this to scn at scn.org,
where anyone interested will be able to participate or at least watch the
discussion taking place. Anyone not already subscribed can simply send a
message to majordomo at scn.org with "subscribe scn." Or visit the website
archive of scn at scn.org at http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/
Also, can we keep "background checks?" in the subject line to help readers
follow the thread?
Thanks,
- Mel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</thread>
--kurt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * * http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/ * * * * * * *
More information about the scn
mailing list