[Wpfw-lsb] Time for a vote on making this list's archive secret and accessible only to subscribers

[D. N. Russo]

At 10:11 AM 6/8/2004 -0400, thomas ruffin wrote:
>dear rupert:
>
>although i have not responded to you lately, i never stepped aside like you
>asked of me so that others could speak.  i simply have not looked at the
>listserv or at my emails lately.  however, rupert, now that i read your
>statement and sarah's statement, i realize that you misled us when you
>offered to set up the listserv.  when you volunteered to set up the
>listserv, you promised that we could speak with each other in private,
>without being spied on through an "archives" or any other means.  i am
>surprised that sarah knew about this arrangement and never revealed it.  i
>am surprised that you set up this arrangement and never revealed it until
>now.  with this discovery, i want a new listserv, without your assistance,
>and with privacy for communications between the local station board
>members.  i hope that someone other than you and sarah set it up.
>
>thomas ruffin.

Hi Thomas
I'm sorry, but your statements are a little disingenuous, almost sounding 
paranoid. You don't need a listserv to have private debate. Just use cc' 
lists, mark your memos private... what's the big deal?

If it helps serve the LSB all and the public more to have a private, secret 
listserv for the body of the whole, then I guess it's worth it, but 
definitely debatable. And that's why I have been writing you all. Maybe the 
concept of a cc' list is beyond some LSB members technological capacity. I 
never heard either way from anyone when the list was established, and I'm 
sorry you feel misled or surprised, Thomas. To accuse me of misleading you 
is offensive to me. To accuse Sarah of misleading anyone with me is even 
more offensive. All I've done is serve the LSB with hours and hours of my 
time, encoding audio, uploading audio, streaming the meeting live online, 
and making sure it's all archived and available, working on the website 
re-design to help improve the LSB's communication with the community. I 
guess from your position, Thomas, you probably don't appreciate -any- of 
this because it gives the public access to hear what the board is doing. 
Like, if no one came to record the meetings, you wouldn't fight to make 
sure they did get recorded.

I think it's time to bring it to a vote at the next meeting. I propose it 
for the agenda, but someone else from the Board needs to raise it as a 
motion. There are people who agree with Thomas' position, but I think the 
listening community will be very very upset, since this idea is to hide 
what the board does, and so far this LSB has some issues with transparency. 
For example, where else does one find out what the LSB is doing on a week 
to week basis, what decisions moved foward, etc. Basically where is the 
public record created?? It's no where except here right now. I don't know 
where else to learn what committees there are and how to contact them 
ONLINE. I think it's just a slow process for this board but it will happen.

The status quo now is that this board as a whole has NO INTERNET 
communication with the public, except this listserv and the radio, which 
isn't archived.

Of course you can set up your own lists, and shroud yourselves in secrecy. 
But what's the point of using all that technology. CC and BCC fields create 
privacy.

I don't want to take any unilateral action, you know? If the whole board 
votes and agrees to make this listserv's archives private, I'm fine with 
it. Your decision, I'm just facilitating. I just wish there was more 
communication to me about this from other board members. I'd like to know 
how the LSB plans to use the Internet to share with the public what they 
are doing after this list would be made secret?

WPFW listener, Jack Waugh writes
http://www.women4peace.org/wpfw/comm-tech.html
"a comparison matrix on tools that LSB subcommittees could use for internal 
communication by computer network? When the Managerial Assessment and 
Search Committee considered this matrix, they decided to use Yahoo! Groups 
because of its "files" area, which permits an hierarchal organization of 
the committee's documents. I suggest that all committees should see this 
matrix, and that a representative of the Technology committee should show 
it to them and explain the advantages and drawbacks of each candidate tool 
relative to the others."

This is step in the right direction. The only thing I don't like about 
Yahoo is all your data is on their servers, you have pretty limited amount 
of space before you have to start paying them $$, and one has to jump 
through some hurdles to join Yahoo to use the resources.  The Technology 
Committee needs to help the board decide how to best resolve this issue of 
Tech and Transparency.

Again, I'm sorry you thought the list was private and it wasn't. If I made 
a mistake along the way, I'm sorry. It was never intentional to make such a 
mistake. I would appreciate it, Thomas, if you would re-consider your 
conspiratorial tone toward me and others on the LSB regarding this issue. 
It seems to only undermine what we're all trying to accomplish together, in 
my opinion.

peace in the sun,
Rupert


> > [Original Message]
> > From: D. N. Russo <dnrusso at earthlink.net>
> > To: <wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org>
> > Date: 6/2/2004 12:33:32 PM
> > Subject: [Wpfw-lsb] Does Thomas Ruffin speak for this entire LSB? I need
>yourfeedback, please
> >
> > june 2, 2004
> >
> > Greetings
> > I've asked Thomas to step aside and give space for the rest of the board
>to
> > voice their opinion about the listserv policy so that we can move on with
> > the appropriate action. Repeatedly, Thomas uses "we" to describe his
> > opinions and I just wanted to check in with you ALL to see if there is
>some
> > private consensus that I don't know about that you ALL do indeed want to
> > make the list private, or that you thought it was private from the
> > beginning, including the archives, and that Thomas is your spokesperson.
> >
> > see below
> >
> > At 11:19 AM 6/2/2004 -0400, thomas ruffin wrote:
> > >dear rupert:
> > >
> > >we have not asked for a change.  you have.  if members of the local
>station
> > >board reveal to the public matters that we discuss on the local station
> > >board listservs, so long as we do not prohibit the disclosure of that
> > >matter, then the individual local station board member bears
>responsibility
> > >for that disclosure.  if we say nothing later about the disclosure, then
>we
> > >consented at least implicitly to the disclosure.  that does not mean that
> > >we need or want anyone reading our preliminary ideas.  as far as i am
> > >concerned, no one but board members read our emails on our local station
> > >board listserv; that is, unless you do!
> >
> > It's impossible for a List Administrator to "eavesdrop" on the list that
> > they admin, Thomas. Thanks for the laugh, though.
> >
> > >yet, you promised at the outset that we could discuss our ideas in a
>secure
> > >environment when you volunteered to create these listservs.
> >
> > I didn't "promise" anything. I offered choices and received scant
>response,
> > if any. No one even replied to me, so I went ahead and got the ball
>rolling
> > with this list so work could get done. Public lists are more accountable.
> > That's why the archives are public, but the list is still moderated.
> >
> > >  so, please,
> > >leave us alone with this.  if we ask for some change, we will ask you
> > >explicitly.  in other words, a read only arrangement is still
>eavesdropping
> > >on discussions that we need to have in private.  after we have our
>fights,
> > >our misunderstandings, and our friendly counsels with each other, we
>become
> > >better prepared as a group to debate these issues (if they survive) in
>our
> > >public meetings.  that is enough accountability under the pacifica
>bylaws.
> > >the bylaws call for nothing else; and you promised nothing else when you
> > >volunteered to create these listservs.  indeed you never informed us that
> > >you or others would read our postings on these private listservs.
> > >therefore, please respect our privacy while we talk on a preliminary
>basis
> > >about our ideas.
> >
> > I respect the need for privacy. Now the rest of the board needs to reply
>to
> > this issue, since it appears that you are presumptuously claiming to
>speak
> > for the entire board (which is very offensive, if you don't know that).
> > Furthermore, you have not responded to the argument I made, Thomas, that
> > privacy is just as well achieved with cc' lists via email. Why must you
> > privatize this entire resource? In emails sent to me thusfar, no one
> > supports your position, Thomas. So I recommend that you save face and
>check
> > in with your fellow board members before lobbying on their behalf.
> >
> > It is refreshing to know, however, that your sentiments and actions are
>on
> > the public record for all voters to see, when it comes time to decide who
> > to re-elect and who to replace. When you incite flamewars and imply
> > offensive things about the list administrator's intention, publicly, it
> > doesn't do well for your record. Your point is well taken, and you don't
> > need to repeat yourself (another annoying behavior which prolongs
>meetings
> > until 11pm, btw).
> >
> > Again, I will only know if you are speaking for everyone's true opinion
> > when they speak up on this list. Mike Gillespie is the first to reply.
> > Sarah's response needs clarification whether she would prefer privacy for
> > the list archives, though I think that's what she meant, because she
>agreed
> > to having other people subscribe who are committee level volunteers.
> >
> > Perhaps I am wrong and you all *do* want this to be a secret listserv.
> > Thomas has written 3 times. It's time to hear from others. Please tell me
> > what you want to do with the OPTIONS that I have outlined in previous
> > emails. I respect the need to have a forum to write unselfconsciously to
> > debate issues, but I hear very strong opinions from various quarters that
>a
> > democratized process is open for the public to see and that cc' lists are
>a
> > more intelligent use of our technology to protect privacy.
> >
> > I think it's in your interest to adapt to using cc' lists to say things
> > that you might regret later. That way there's no archive, no paper trail,
> > except you have to trust those who you are cc'ing/debating not to forward
> > it out later. Finally, I ask, what's the point of using this fancy
>listserv
> > technology donated to us by mutualaid.org, if all the communication is
> > deemed secret, never to see the light of day - just so that you can
>debate?
> > I specifically chose this resource because of the archiving features.
> >
> > You have each other email addresses, debate/fight/heal via cc' lists.
> >
> > thanks. your humble techie servant,
> > rupert
> >
> > >thomas ruffin.
> > >
> > >
> > > > [Original Message]
> > > > From: D. N. Russo <dnrusso at earthlink.net>
> > > > To: <wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org>
> > > > Date: 6/2/2004 10:49:28 AM
> > > > Subject: [Wpfw-lsb] RE: How does the LSB want to accept new
> > >mailinglistmembers?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Hello all:
> > > > >
> > > > >I hope this finds all well.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't think we should make individual 'exceptions' or decisions to
> > >allow
> > > > >people to join the list; either make it open to anyone, or not. So
>I'd
> > > > >suggest we not allow the programmer in question to join, but instead
> > >make
> > > > >a decision and apply it to everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > >If we follow through with the idea that transparency is appropriate,
>we
> > > > >could allow anyone to subscribe on a read-only basis, and not add any
> > > > >postings or much administrative burden to the list.  This is my
> > >suggestion.
> > > > >
> > > > >In fact this would represent very little change from how the list
>exists
> > > > >now----anyone can go to the the list and read the archives at any
>time,
> > > > >and there are people who do.  And of course anyone on the list can
> > >forward
> > > > >any of the postings, and there are people who do.  So you see, we
>have
> > > > >transparency already.  If this is news to you, welcome to the
> > > > >internet!  By allowing folks to register on a read-only basis we
>would
> > > > >only be making it a bit more convenient for them to do what they
>already
> > > > >are doing.
> > > > >
> > > > >I don't think we need multiple lists including a closed one, because
> > > > >indeed members will continue to distribute postings from it, so it
> > > > >wouldn't be confidential either.  Although setting up and
>administering
> > > > >more lists might be a great way to use up some of those surplus
> > >volunteer
> > > > >hours that we have.  A second LSB list would also give folks another
> > >much
> > > > >needed place to post their messages (If some of you are looking for
>more
> > > > >Emails, maybe we could set up a special list just for you).  We are
> > > > >already accessible; many of us published Email addresses during the
> > > > >election and subsequently, we do provide monthly opportunity for
> > >Community
> > > > >Comment at our meetings, and many of us participate in the OurWPFW,
>and
> > > > >other lists.
> > > > >
> > > > >Maybe we could devote several hours of our surplus meeting and EMail
> > >time
> > > > >to the topic?
> > > > >
> > > > >Seriously though, I'd like to add an item to our next LSB meeting
> > >agenda,
> > > > >and at that time move that we keep this existing list and allow
>anyone
> > >to
> > > > >subscribe on a read-only basis.
> > > > >
> > > > >Again I hope this finds all well.  And THANKS in advance to our
>members
> > > > >who will shortly be on their way to Houston.  I look forward to
>seeing
> > > > >everyone on the 9th.
> > > > >
> > > > >Peace,
> > > > >
> > > > >Mike Gillispie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>From: "D. N. Russo" <dnrusso at earthlink.net>
> > > > >>To: wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > > > >>Subject: RE: [Wpfw-lsb] How does the LSB want to accept new
>mailinglist
> > > > >>members?
> > > > >>Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:24:06 -0400
> > > > >>
> > > > >>At 04:37 PM 6/1/2004 +0000, you wrote:
> > > > >>>To All,
> > > > >>>   I'm a few days behind on e-mailing, so please excuse how long
>it's
> > > > >>> taken me to get to this.
> > > > >>>   I would like to hear how others feel about this, but here is my
> > > > >>> thinking--I think we should have a list that is just a workspace
>for
> > > > >>> us, for lsb business.  However, we should also have one that
>others
> > >can
> > > > >>> post on so that we can communicate with the public.  I don't
>really
> > > > >>> care which one is which, but I do think both are neccesary.
>Rupert,
> > >if
> > > > >>> I approve the membership for the programmer, who is in fact
>working
> > > > >>> with the programming committee right now, and should have some
>way to
> > > > >>> work with us on-line, could you set up a separate one just for
>work
> > >for
> > > > >>> us?  Thanks,
> > > > >>>
>Sarah
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Hi Sarah and Co.
> > > > >>I set up the wpfw-lsb mailing list as the workspace for the board. I
> > >feel
> > > > >>that there are plenty of other already existing public forums for
>the
> > > > >>board and everyone to talk about WPFW and Pacifica. There's a yahoo
> > > > >>group, and several other lists, i think. I'm not going to setup or
> > >admin
> > > > >>another such public forum. But I'm sure someone else will if people
> > >feel
> > > > >>that they need a free-for-all area just to talk about the WPFW LSB
> > >issues.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Sarah, It sounds like you agree with OPTION #2 of my proposal, is
>that
> > > > >>correct?
> > > > >>As list admin, I think the wpfw-lsb mailing list can grow in
> > >subscribers
> > > > >>on a case by case basis based on the criteria for joining the list
> > >being
> > > > >>"active participation at the committee level of the LSB." I think
> > >that's
> > > > >>a fair next step in list growth and management that does not
>threaten
> > >the
> > > > >>effectiveness of the tool for communication. And since all messages
>by
> > > > >>those non-LSB subscribers are moderated anyway, it's all fine. List
> > > > >>Moderation, if you have never done it before, can be an extremely
> > > > >>laborious, time-consuming task when there is robust participation of
> > >50+
> > > > >>people. That's why I'm being rather conservative with my position on
> > >the
> > > > >>list subscription policy. It's open for discussion, obviously.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>So far, the 3 responses I've received, people like OPTION #2.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>FYI, after the station management completes the upgrade to the
>website
> > > > >>which is in-progress, the mailing list info links, including the
> > >archive
> > > > >>URL will be very prominent on the front page of the WPFW website. I
> > > > >>predict we will have more public demand to subscribe to the mailing
> > >list.
> > > > >>So, perhaps OPTION #2 is too conservative and we will need to
>consider
> > >it
> > > > >>further. Imagine for a moment that we received 200 requests from the
> > > > >>public to join the mailing list. That would be a success in
>expanding
> > >our
> > > > >>mission. The only change will be in the time spent in list
>moderation
> > > > >>which is no big deal, really, if it's shared between a few people.
> > > > >>Currently, Jim Brown, Sarah Bittle and Tracy Lewis have the
> > >"moderator"
> > > > >>password, and I get the messages as well when there are messages
> > >waiting
> > > > >>for approval/denial.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I thus feel compelled to offer an OPTION #3?
> > > > >>3) "Anyone can subscribe to the wpfw-lsb mailing list. Only LSB
> > >members'
> > > > >>messages are automatically sent to the list without moderation. All
> > >other
> > > > >>messages are moderated, or approved by members of the LSB who are
> > > > >>designated by entire LSB. The public is encouraged to use the
>mailing
> > > > >>list to write the board with their opinions and feedback and offer
>help
> > > > >>at the committee level. We encourage contributors to keep their
>posts
> > > > >>relevant to the WPFW local station and the agenda of the LSB. Any
> > >abusive
> > > > >>postings, SPAM, or personal attacks sent to the list will be
>discarded.
> > > > >>All list archives are readable at
> > > > >>http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/wpfw-lsb/ The only benefit of
> > > > >>subscribing to the list is that you get the emails directly sent to
> > >you."
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I would propose this language be used on the WPFW website when the
> > >public
> > > > >>reads about the wpfw-lsb mailing list so that they know what it's
>about
> > > > >>and that the list policy if clear to everyone.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Remember, you all can always change the subscription policy later
>if it
> > > > >>doesn't suit you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Comments?
> > > > >>thanks,
> > > > >>-rupert
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>>From: "D. N. Russo" <dnrusso at earthlink.net>
> > > > >>>>To: wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > > > >>>>Subject: [Wpfw-lsb] How does the LSB want to accept new mailing
>list
> > > > >>>>members?
> > > > >>>>Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 19:57:30 -0400
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Hello LSB,
> > > > >>>>I told myself we'd deal with this bridge when we come to it...
> > > > >>>>We've had our first non-board member ask to subscribe to the
>mailing
> > > > >>>>list. A WPFW programmer wants to receive messages.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>I initially thought that the public could simply read the archives
> > >and
> > > > >>>>mail messages to the list address, thus keeping the subscribers
> > >limited
> > > > >>>>to the board members only. It would be less administrative on me,
> > >too.
> > > > >>>>But the mailing list software allows us to deal with this in
>several
> > > > >>>>ways. You can allow the public to subscribe to the wpfw-lsb
>mailing
> > > > >>>>list, if you would like. I can set all non-LSB list subscribers to
> > >have
> > > > >>>>their messages moderated, so that email traffic doesn't get out of
> > > > >>>>control, and the moderators approve whatever isn't spam or
> > > > >>>>inappropriate for the list. That way, people who are interested in
> > > > >>>>getting the LSB email can do so and can essentially linger, read
>and
> > >be
> > > > >>>>in-the-know. They can accomplish the same thing by going to the
> > > > >>>>archives page, though, without adding more subscriber maintenance.
> > > > >>>>http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/wpfw-lsb/
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Basically, my only concern is that the list becomes yet another
> > >public
> > > > >>>>discussion forum, which is not the intent of this mailing list,
>in my
> > > > >>>>opinion. It's the Board's workspace to make communications
>efficient
> > > > >>>>and the archives should reflect the LSB in discussion in between
> > > > >>>>meetings. Not the LSB talking/debating/arguing with the public.
>But
> > >you
> > > > >>>>all need to decide how much public level participation you want on
> > >this
> > > > >>>>list. There are other forums for people to discuss WPFW. Do you
>want
> > > > >>>>this mailing list to be open game for drawn out conversations and
> > > > >>>>debate, or do you want it to be a controlled environment where
> > >business
> > > > >>>>can be done?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>1) The current list subscription policy is: the public can email
>the
> > > > >>>>list without a problem at wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org and they
>can
> > > > >>>>read the archives from the web. Moderators are supposed to approve
> > >the
> > > > >>>>letters from the public addressed to the LSB.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>2) If the policy is that members of the public can subscribe to
> > >receive
> > > > >>>>emails only and all email is moderated, then that would be a
>slight
> > > > >>>>variation that the technology does provide for and I can manage.
>This
> > > > >>>>would make it easier for the public to pay attention to what the
> > >board
> > > > >>>>is saying, and be able to contribute at the committee level. As
> > > > >>>>Programmers and other WPFW family begin joining the committees,
>then
> > >it
> > > > >>>>makes sense to adapt the policy.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>It sounds like the LSB has evolved to the point where OPTION #2 is
> > > > >>>>favorable.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>I want access to the LSB to be as open as possible, while at the
>same
> > > > >>>>time not allowing the list to become an inefficient tool.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>thanks for your feedback. you can email me OFFlist if you would
>like.
> > > > >>>>If you like OPTION 1 or OPTION 2, please say so. If you have an
> > > > >>>>alternative proposal, please write it out. Questions welcome.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>Rupert
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>>>Wpfw-lsb mailing list
> > > > >>>>Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > > > >>>>http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
> > > > >>>>free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/
> > > > >>
> > > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>Wpfw-lsb mailing list
> > > > >>Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > > > >>http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
> > > > >>free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wpfw-lsb mailing list
> > > > Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > > > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
> > > > free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wpfw-lsb mailing list
> > Wpfw-lsb at lists.mutualaid.org
> > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/wpfw-lsb
> > free hosting provided by http://www.mutualaid.org/