Re: Complaints, Particularly about the Reflector
Jack,
Thank you for your very informative and helpful email. Just to clear things
up a little more:
1. The problem, that many of the posted emails in the reflector contain
email addresses in quoted headers was pointed out by Serge in his message
#917. It results from the common behavior of the members of the mailing
list; therefore, the members have to be involved.
2. There are email programs, which only show a clickable link to the email
to be replied to, so nobody can be accused with intentional wrong doing,
not even with carelessness. Extra warnings and inconvenient user actions
are required to avoid the problem. But even then, the already archived
emails will not be cleaned.
3. A better solution would be what I politely asked for in my message #916:
"Would it be possible to install a filter, which automatically blinds email
addresses in messages posted to the reflector?" This was to correct the
inadvertent mistakes of the members, and it is a common practice in BB SW.
4. A controversy about English composition could have diverted the
attention from the real issue and members of the mailing list might have
overlooked it. This is why I re-raised the issue in message #964, with new
supporting data about spam it may cause. I tried really hard to formulate
the message, so that nobody finds it offensive. I also noted that "It can
be solved with a 10-line script: masking the email addresses in quoted
email headers."
5. This was not a complaint against anybody, including Jim or IEEE, but a
request for discussion about the need for installing a filter, which blinds
accidental email exposures. If there will be no response, or only negative
ones, we can conclude that the WG does not find it necessary to deal with
it, and the issue will be closed.
Laszlo
"Cole, John
Sent by:
stds-p1619@ieee.o To
rg "SISWG" <stds-p1619@IEEE.ORG>
No Phone Info cc
Available
Subject
Complaints, Particularly about the
06/03/2006 02:08 Reflector
PM
Gentle People,
You should bring complaints to Jim Hughes and or Serge Plotkin. If they do
not satisfy your complaints, or the complaints are about them, bring your
complaint to me. If it is about me, then to Kathy Land, VP for Standards in
the Computer Society, and chair of the Standards Activity Board which
sponsors IASC and SSSC. IASC and SSSC jointly sponsor P1619, with IASC
having the lead. Kathy's address is susan.land@ngc.com. The working group
reflector is not the place to bring complaints repeatedly. That is not the
business of the reflector or of the working group (wg). No one on the list
except the IEEE officers (wg chair, wg vice chair sponsor chair) can help a
wg member with a complaint.
WRT complains about the stds-p1619 reflector offered by IEEE: Read the IEEE
AUP. It states that the list is presented as is; use of the list is
privilege, not a right; there is no guarantee of privacy associated with
its use on the part of subscribers; and no liability accrues to the IEEE or
its officers because of anyone's subscription. The AUP may be read at
http://eleccomm.ieee.org/email-aup.shtml, and this link should be sent to
every new subscriber automatically. At present, Jim Hughes (a volunteer)
is the list owner, and the only person who can configure it within the
bounds set by the IEEE administrator (paid staff).
If you are unhappy with the list or the consequences of your subscription,
the obvious choice is to unsubscribe. You are free to do that without
asking anyone and without assistance from anyone.
Go to the "subscribers corner" at http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa or
unsubscribe by sending an e-mail to listserv@ieee.org <
mailto:listserv@ieee.org?&body=subscribe%20stds-p1619> with the body
containing the following string: "unsubscribe stds-p1619" (do not include
the quote marks).
The obvious choice if IEEE is dissatisfied with the behavior of a
subscriber is for the IEEE is to begin moderating that subscriber's
postings. If that becomes too much of a burden, then to turn off the
subscriber's ability to post to the list while leaving on the ability to
receive postings of others. The right to be heard does not bestow a right
to dominate a communications channel by email or in meetings nor does it
bestow a right to air complaints through any but the recognized channels
mentioned above. Mentioning a complaint to the refelector once is
acceptable because others may be having a similar problem. But if no others
have the problem of which you complain, then take the complaint offline as
described. The procedures established for this group and others
organizational units in IEEE vary a little from each other, but all
establish the means to retain control of the process by which discussions
take place in order to keep these focused on the purpose at hand. In this
case, development of a draft standard. Even though much of this effort is
supported by volunteers, the need to be as business-like as possible
remains.
Very Respectfully,
Jack Cole, Chair IASC