Re: PAB Proposal for email

From: Kent Crispin (kent@songbird.com)
Date: Fri Dec 05 1997 - 00:15:37 PST


On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 08:05:27AM +1300, Peter Mott wrote:
> >>PAB needs an environment where it can debate issues free from risk
> >>of a particular interpretation being placed on comments by casual
> >>readers (media and others) who only take a snap shot view.
>
> >perhaps, but it's not an attainable goal, since we already have examples of
> >people forwarding on portions of email exchanges and having them be
> >misconstrued.
>
> I think it is attainable. We reduce opportunity for people to do it
> accidently

My interest in opening the list is not based on the practical
impossibility of keeping it closed, but rather on the desirablity of
it being open.

> and we remove those who deliberately break the rules.

Since there are many (myself included) who would rather not have such
rules, I think it would be singularly difficult to enforce them, even
if they could be passed. Also, I think it would be extraordinarily
difficult to define rules that are reasonably enforcable, even in
principle. For example, many of the entities that are members of PAB
are large organizations. I can't see any reason why an organization
should not be able to forward PAB mail to their policy makers, or
indeed, all of their members; and I see no reasonable way that we can
demand that large organizations police their membership to not spread
the information.

> This helps everybody. Where is the encouragement for quality PAB folk
> to participate if they know somebody is lurking ready to copy extracts to
> the general public to suit their own ends?

In all honesty, I don't consider this a significant problem. There
have been a couple of cases where "leaks" happened. But they
disappeared in the noise, and have had no significant effect on
either the outcome of things or the behavior of the "leakees" :-).

I do have considerable sympathy for the concern of the introduction
of noise conversations on the list that might be cause by to rapid a
publication of the archives. I think a week delay would be about
right -- it would be pretty responsive to the issue of timely
publication of debate, but the delay would be long enough so that it
would be difficult to maintain a flame over it.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:14 PST