[IMC-Boston-Discuss] erasing list archives

[Matthew Williams]

I suspect Sofia's right about the flamewars on this list discouraging 
people from getting involved--and this conversation is turning into 
another flamewar. I would suggest that we either save this discussion 
for the next general meeting, or that Pete and Sofia talk by phone 
before then. I would remind you guys what we talked about at the last 
web-editorial meeting--how we always seem to go for each others' 
throats over e-mail, then work things out in a fairly civil and 
amicable fashion once we talk in person or on the phone.

As for the actual procedures for dealing with whatever is in the list 
archives, this situation came up before, with a woman who e-mailed us a 
resume (not realizing we are an all-volunteer group and not realizing 
she was sending it to a publicly archived e-mail list) and then a year 
or two later discovered what she had done while Googling her name to 
see what potential employers might find out about her by doing so. I 
handled the interactions with her and we did agree to delete the e-mail 
in question. Then I went into the e-mail interface program and 
discovered that there is no way to delete e-mails from the 
archives--there's no button to click or anything of that sort. So then 
I e-mailed global tech and they did the procedure I described 
earlier--putting code into the e-mail to block Google searches and a 
request to Google to do something or other so they reset their search 
function on that name, so the archive pages in question are no longer 
archived in Google. Or something like that. As a non-tech person, it 
was a bit over my head. The list-serve program we were using then 
doesn't seem to have changed much, so I'm guessing we'll have to stick 
to the same procedure. But we can always check if things have changed.

-- Matt

On Jul 26, 2005, at 5:44 PM, sharpie at riseup.net wrote:

> I have to say, I'm really unclear what messages you're talking about 
> pete.
> Can you give some urls for these emails? The one email I thought you 
> were
> referring to didn't fit the description you describe.
>
> I find this to be a strange practice, and in fact a bit absurd. 
> Perhaps i
> don't properly understand the situation? Why was your boss looking at 
> our
> email list in the firstplace, and why is she/he foolish enough to take 
> it
> in anyway seriously?
>
> Again, maybe i just don't understand the situation, I certainly wasn't
> able to locate these emails you're referring to...
>
> If there's a reasonable case for this based on the actual emails in
> question, great and it's worth considering, but until I see that, I 
> can't
> really support anything more than what Matt's talking about, if 
> removing
> the listserve from googling is even possible...
>
> Certainly anyone coming into the Boston Indymedia group deserves to be
> able to get a full recorded history, which is due to exactly the
> transparency issue you've been talking about.
>
> peace
> sharpie
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> imc-boston mailing list
>> imc-boston at lists.indymedia.org
>> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-boston
>>
>
>