On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 09:09:06AM -0400, Thomas Patton wrote:
> Is there a way to archive the Gaithersburg List discussions? Perhaps
> someone will join in a few weeks, and they will have missed prior
> ideas, discussions, and information.
Tom,
This is an interesting question, and one that has come
up before. It is, at least in my mind, tied into a another
list-policy issue, and I'd be very interested in hearing
everyone's opinions on all this.
However, before going into this, I will give the short
answer: No, there is currently no archive mechanism. Also,
I'll give the not-quite-so-short answer: Copies of all
the previous traffic certainly exist in some of our
inboxes, and an archive could be created. Beyond this, a
periodically-updated, or even a "real-time" archive could
at some point be created, so that for example it would be
possible to read this list on the web rather than in our
email. However, (a) the more functional this kind of thing
gets, the more programming and resources it involves,
and (b) there are some list-policy questions that make the
decision to do this less than trivial.
And now the long answer: We have also been asked, more than
once, if the list of recipients can be made available.
So far, we have not been doing this. This would appear
to us to be the conservative choice, the one fraught with
the least peril. However, the concern from some has been
that the lack of access to the subscriber list might give
some list members pause in the question of whether to post
their opinions: some may feel uncomfortable speaking to
a group of people they cannot even see.
While I understand this concern, there are parallel
difficulties with disclosure of the list. For example,
some city officials could conceivably want to listen
to the discussion without the knowledge of this sort
of passive participation affecting the discussion
itself. Understanding that no one is under any obligation
to join or post to this list, one has to consider the
question of whether the elimination of this sort of
opportunity to listen anonymously would represent a loss
for the list community or a gain. My personal opinion is
that anything that encourages elected officials and city
staff (or any person with an interest the city, for that
matter) to listen to what the residents are saying is a
net positive, but I understand that others may not agree.
Another difficulty with the release of the mailing list
has to do with the form in which it can be released. Many
people give out their email address only with great
care, in the same way in which many people have unlisted
telephone numbers. If we were to release the list simply
as a list of email addresses, it would be too easy for
that list to be used for purposes that run counter to
the purposes of the mailing list that people signed
up for. Such a list could be used to send spam or even
abusive or threatening mail to list members without that
mail going through the list processor, thus circumventing
the protections that have been built into the list (e.g.
only list members can post and abusive members can be
removed).
On the other hand, in some cases, all we, the list
administrators, will have for a subscriber will be their
email address. Although most people do list their names
in the From: line of their messages, we do not actually
require a name when people subscribe, only some indication
that they are genuinely involved in the community. An
email address and a statement that "I live in Park Station
Apartments", for example, may be sufficient. While this
may seem to some a bit loose, going much beyond this is
extremely difficult -- how are we to tell, for example, if
someone is even telling the truth about their name? There
are no straightforward means by which we can positively
authenticate subscribers -- we have to operate on the honor
system here. One of the greatest benefits that this gives
us is knowing that each subscriber is most likely a real,
actual person and not an automatic process such as those
that are run by sites such as Deja (http://www.deja.com)
and some spammers who have been known to subscribe to,
archive and index mailing list content without permission.
Also, it should also be understood that we have no ability
to control *redistribution*. One person could easily
subscribe to this list and then resend all postings to
thirty of his or her friends and associates.
Thus, to the extent that the goal of releasing the mailing
list would be to ensure that everyone knows who all is
listening to the discussion, (a) there are several counter-
balancing costs associated with taking this step, and (b)
the goal can probably not be met through this mechanism
anyway. Everyone on the list should know that neither Ed nor
I have any intention of using this list for anything but
the distribution of the list traffic, and that we are exercising
a reasonable amount of care in adding subscribers to attempt
to minimize any misuse of the list. If people want it to be
known that they subscribe to the list, they can certainly
make a quick post to the list to let everyone know that they
are listening. But even that we cannot require.
I bring this all up now in large part because I agree
that it would be most valuable for there to be an archive
of the list traffic available to people, and expect that
we probably will do this at some point when we have the
time available to put it together. The important thing to
realize here is that this step will make it more explicit
than ever that the list readership cannot be known to
those who post. Even if today's list membership were
to be made known, once the archive goes up, thousands
of anonymous people will be able to read our messages,
effectively nullifying the value of today's list disclosure
(in a list archive, email addresses will likely be mangled
in some way so that they cannot be harvested and used by
spammers, so a post to this list will not be taken as a
license to disclose your address to the world). Yes, it is
technically feasible to require a loginid and password to
review the list, but given the other ways in which the list
traffic could be redistributed, and the work involved in
setting up and maintaining such an authentication system,
the cost vs benefit of doing this would, in my opinion,
be highly unfavorable.
I welcome feedback on these issues, either privately, or
to the list subscribership as a whole (please remember to
do a "reply to all" in your mailer if you want the message
to go to the whole list). Please understand that, as of today,
the subscriber list has not been disclosed, but neither has
an archive been put on line. Thus, there is no sense in which
discussion of these issues is moot.
Thanks for your attention to this long message,
--Bob Drzyzgula
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 19 2000 - 16:04:17 EDT