[MUD-Dev] META: Making the list public?

[Martin Keegan]

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:

> Writing as List Owner:

You should get a separate email address called listowner at foo if muddev
goes public.
 
> A)  Should the archives be requestable or browsable by non-members? 
> Note that this effectively makes ever poster's email address open.

The archives would be of great use for brainwashing (wrong word) newcomers
into "The Ways of the List" 
 
> B)  Should the list be echoed (one way) to a newsgroup?  If it is
> echoed to a newsgroup should that group be a private group on a
> private newsserver, or should I create a moderated alt.mud.development

Private newsservers don't go to DejaNews. They also pose technical
problems for many non-NNTP-admin users.

> group?

Such a group would simply have to be moderated, and each message would
have to have an annoying tag appended to it telling people not to reply
but to join the list, etc.
 
> C) Should the list be split into seperate lists, divided by topic? 
> What should the topic splits be?  (Note: I'm not keen on this motion. 
> Convince me)

Everyone's gut reaction is no.
 
> D) How should the list be publicised?  As part of this can the current
> list invitation be extended as the publicity banner, and if so, how
> should it be modified?  (Hey, Keegan!  How about that invitation
> update for the introduction message!)

Sorry - my computer/email/news access has been patchy of late. Sending
modified invite to you by email. Change basically mentions the intro
message thing.
 
> E) How should new membership be handled?
> 
>   Possible membership options:
> 
>     1) Publicise the list but only allow membership by application. 
> ie New members would have to apply, stating *why* they should be
> considered as members.  These applications would be posted to the list
> as well as my decisions on them.  (I'm not fond of this approach for
> the overhead it puts on me).
>
>     2) Publicise the fact of the list, but leave membership by
> invitation only.  Require any new member to be sponsored by an
> existant member.

I'm in favour of this as opposed to #1. (probably with #3 thrown in -
though you need to define "actively posting")

>     3) Variation on #2: require the sponsor to also be an actively
> posting member.
> 
>     4) Make membership uncontrolled.

No. Your moderation power goes out the window then.
 
>     5) Something else?

"Abuse it and lose it" means that AOL will eventually have read-only
access to the Net. The Net could be given read-only access to the list
through the web or Usenet. Getting onto the list could be an intelligence
test like on your BBS.

> Note:  None of this means that the list will become a flame-fest or a
> counter part to the r.g.m.* newsgroups.  I would continue to actively
> moderate the list.  Only the publicity and subscription methods of the
> list would change.  
 
> Do realise however that taking the list public opens it to the Reese
> idiot intolerace flames, Katrina's dunno-how-C++-works prattles,

I submit that a lot of those people are fired up by the flamebouyant
culture of r.g.mad, and would be able to distinguish between JCL (writing
as list-owner) and JCL (anti-reset whipping boy) after a few days on the
list. I don't see Reese getting himself kicked off for disobeying a "This
thread dies here"  request from JCL (walo). 

In another post, you define "infraction". Disregarding requests from the
list owner ought to be included in this definition (hopefully not
explicitly)

> Addledbrain III's LP-is-da-deity pieties, DikuHeads R00L chants etc of

Addledbrain III's blatant lies are what get to me. He's not the sort of
person who'd get invited anyway, though, is he?

> the world, etc and that any moderation I do will be after the fact. 
> As such it will potentially open us to hit-and-run attacks.  I don't
> think this is a huge danger, but it is present and should be
> acknowledged.

If the membership rules don't change much - and I don't see any reason for
them to do so if the list goes public, we're already vulnerable to that
sort of nonsense if one of us is a closet loser.


I am in favour of a "minimalist" change to make the list public, probably
by making it and its archives publicly available, and keeping membership
rules as they are. As it is now, there are people who refuse to join
because the thing isn't public.

One problem with this approach is that newbies would have to send begging
letters to list members in order to get on, and this would bring about
pressure for a further liberalisation of the rules.

Mk