[IMC-Boston-Discuss] erasing list archives

[Pete Stidman]

To my memory, this problem came up before and the
e-mails were simply erased from the archives.  At that
time the group together consensed that solidarity with
community members was important.  

If the person in question blocks the removal of
his/her own accusatory emails at the next general
meeting, I propose we enact the 3/4 majority vote so
that this issue does not take up precious work time. 
I ask that each of you imagine yourself as the
wrongful target of the accusations- and having that be
public information on the internet.  

Transparency is important- when we are talking about
the actual truths of the group. But until we
collectively are in agreement that I am a dictator (i
will happily abstain from any meeting or decision to
that effect), I don't think accusations and personal
attacks are necessary public information.  

My proposal would include the group designating a
person to do the erasing, I would send proposals for
erasure to them and they would keep the transparency
interest in mind.  

-Pete


--- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com> wrote:

> You know, I think this problem came up once
> before--embarrassing 
> information in our archives which people didn't want
> accessed by 
> Google--and the international tech/list maintenance
> team did something 
> so that the e-mails in questions were not searchable
> through Google, 
> but weren't erased either. I won't pretend to
> understand exactly how 
> they did it--inserting code somewhere and getting in
> touch with 
> Google--but that may be the best solution to this.
> -- Matt
> 
> On Jul 26, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Sofia JarrinT wrote:
> 
> > I do realize what a radical step blocking is. I
> > believe this is a critical time to use it.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Sofia
> >
> > --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Again in the interest of not arguing on the
> >> internet,
> >> I will only remind folks that blocking is a very
> >> serious and radical step that should not be used
> >> lightly.
> >>
> >> Abuse of blocking is becoming a trend and is in
> >> itself
> >> a unilateral action.
> >>
> >> -Pete
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Sofia JarrinT <sofiajt at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> hi,
> >>> I hope I'm not misunderstanding, but I am
> >> definitely
> >>> opposed to erasing/deleting archived emails from
> >> our
> >>> lists.  Pete, I'm sorry that your boss has seen
> >>> those,
> >>> but I don't think the entire group should suffer
> >> for
> >>> heated arguments we've all had on the internet.
> >> I,
> >>> for one, constantly refer to our archives to
> look
> >>> into
> >>> BIMC policies and discussion we've had about
> >>> different
> >>> processes.  It's incredibly useful and it would
> be
> >> a
> >>> terrible thing to lose.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to Block any such attempts to
> delete
> >>> old
> >>> emails.
> >>>
> >>> I am not opposed to having it somehow protected
> >> for
> >>> members, but it would have to be public anyway
> >>> (meaning, that anyone who wants to become a
> member
> >>> would have access... much like the Dispatch List
> >> is
> >>> now. Not a huge difference).
> >>>
> >>> This is a good incentive, I think, to keep our
> >>> discussion on lists polite.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Sofia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- Pete Stidman <pstidman at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think there are accountability issues that
> >> would
> >>>> come up- maintaining transparency has been a
> >>> mantra
> >>>> of
> >>>> the group for a long time.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would prefer that we erase these emails
> >> whether
> >>> we
> >>>> make the list limited membership or not- since
> >> the
> >>>> group could make the emails public at any time,
> >>>> collectively or individually.  ALready they are
> >>>> archived on google I am sure.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should think about asking people to
> >>> bring
> >>>> their accusations to face to face meetings
> >> rather
> >>>> than
> >>>> on the internet.  Not only is it better from an
> >>>> interpersonal perspective, it will save new and
> >>> old
> >>>> members from burnout and fatigue.
> >>>>
> >>>> reading long emails sux.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Pete
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Matthew Williams <mw21 at mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think we've pretty clearly established that,
> >>>> while
> >>>>> e-mail is good for
> >>>>> routine communications, when it comes to
> >>>>> disagreements, it's a  very
> >>>>> poor medium for settling them. When you're
> >>> talking
> >>>>> face-to-face (or
> >>>>> even by phone), it's easier to see when the
> >>> other
> >>>>> person isn't
> >>>>> understanding you and clarify what you mean.
> >> The
> >>>>> give and take
> >>>>> necessary for dialogue and consensus seems to
> >> go
> >>>>> better. And the
> >>>>> person's intended tone is much clearer when
> >> you
> >>>> can
> >>>>> at least hear their
> >>>>> voice than by e-mail. I think that may have
> >> been
> >>>> the
> >>>>> problem with many
> >>>>> of your e-mails, Andrew--what you meant to
> >> come
> >>>>> across as enthusiasm or
> >>>>> something like that, actually came across in a
> >>>>> fairly overbearing,
> >>>>> abrasive fashion to me and I suspect others as
> >>>> well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Pete's concern about publicly archived
> >>> e-mails
> >>>>> that make him look
> >>>>> like an asshole, I think one solution may be
> >> to
> >>>>> simply make it so our
> >>>>> archives are only available to list members,
> >> not
> >>>> the
> >>>>> general public.
> >>>>> That would also do something to address the
> >>>> problem
> >>>>> of trolls who read
> >>>>> the archives of our lists, then quote us out
> >> of
> >>>>> context on the site. I
> >>>>> guess making the lists not publicly accessible
> >>>> could
> >>>>> raise some
> >>>>> accountability issues, but I don't think that
> >>> many
> >>>>> people really go
> >>>>> digging through our archives anyway and mostly
> >>>> they
> >>>>> seem to be trouble
> >>>>> makers. People with genuine concerns can still
> >>>> post
> >>>>> their complaints to
> >>>>> the site or e-mail us. And if someone really
> >>> wants
> >>>>> to keep tabs on us
> >>>>> that badly, they can join the lists ... it
> >> would
> >>>>> just keep the casual
> >>>>> browser or Googler from reading them and
> >>> possibly
> >>>>> finding stuff out of
> >>>>> context that makes Pete (or any of the rest of
> >>> us)
> >>>>> look bad.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- Matt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 25, 2005, at 10:39 AM, petrina wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> as one of the people who was working the
> >>> table,
> >>>> i
> >>>>> would like to say
> >>>>>> that andrew is FABULOUS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> he had so much energy and was so wonderful
> >>>> talking
> >>>>> to people at the
> >>>>>> table. he offered to let me go
> >>>>>> home and gather the materials at the end of
> >>> the
> >>>>> night. that's all it
> >>>>>> was.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> i'm glad to hear things are better after
> >> that
> >>>>> little misunderstanding.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> i would also just like to say that i am
> >> sorry
> >>>> for
> >>>>> the slightly snippy
> >>>>>> tone of my email last week
> >>>>>> regarding the fundraising meeting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> nobody can make all the meetings and even
> >>> though
> >>>>> in theory the minutes
> >>>>>> are there to be read by
> >>>>>> those who couldn't make it, i know it's hard
> >>> to
> >>>>> keep up with all the
> >>
> > === message truncated ===
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > imc-boston mailing list
> > imc-boston at lists.indymedia.org
> >
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-boston
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> imc-boston mailing list
> imc-boston at lists.indymedia.org
>
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-boston
> 


		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs