[AktiviX-discuss] proposals

max max at tofubandits.org.uk
Sat Jan 22 18:01:34 UTC 2005



> The advantages of open archives is that we can find stuff,
> others can get an idea of what aktivix is about, it means
> there is nothing to try to infiltrate -- with a closed
> list it's a onerous task vetting all applications for
> membership...
if we go down this road, could we have a filter to parse and delete all words 
containing @ and .org .com .net or .co - i.e. email addresses. There is an 
argument for letting people see what's been discussed to see what's it all 
about, but even in that scenario there's no overriding need to see who wrote 
what... in any case - isn't the wiki there for open info and posterity? do we 
really need to openly archive all email correspondence? why? is it really 
that valuable? shouldn't the valuable stuff go on the wiki anyway?

and what about when things get discussed that people would prefer not to have 
openly accessible on the internet? in that scenario logic says there should 
be two lists - aktivix open discuss and aktivix non-archive discuss. but 
that's confusing. so where's the compromise?

how possible is it to have a filter that emails containing, say the words 
"no-archive" in there somewhere don't get archived? but then, what happens 
when people respond, forward etc perhaps deleting the "no-archive" flag by 
mistake, but quoting the original text? 

sorry - more questions than answers...

max

>
> > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, mp wrote:
> > > 1# archive entries concerning email or list requests
> > > to be removed for their obvious contribution to anyone
> > > who may wish to map out activist network (including
> > > this mail!)
>
> Yeah, makes sense...
>
> > > 2# a simple HTML form, to be placed on main page or
> > > prominently linked to from here, in which to make a
> > > request be substituted for current procedures.
>
> Yep, again I think this makes sense for applications for
> email accounts and also lists.
>
> > > 3# the list-owner group should receive the requests
> > > (the form) and make the decision according to their
> > > knowledge of those who request, and of course ask for
> > > seconding etc. as necessary. there may be issues about
> > > accountability etc. in this context, but they are,
> > > imho, secondary and can easily be dealt with. if list
> > > owner group is as a minimum 5 (as currently) it should
> > > possible to have this level of responsibility
> > > delegated - taken into consideration that gains in
> > > privacy.
>
> For this I'd suggest setting up a new list, AktiviX-admin
> and having close archives and a limited membership and
> this list sorting out all this stuff.
>
> Chris



More information about the AktiviX-discuss mailing list