Thread Subject: Re: Requests from General for future considerations

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Oct 31 2006 2:40 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: Requests from General for future considerations"
• Previous message in thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: Requests from General forfutureconsiderations"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Ufda

One more time. (Sorry)

** THERE WAS NO REQUEST TO LIMIT ANY MEMBERSHIP IN SUBCOMMMITEES OR LIST
SERVES** (NO request for limitations of any type on participation)

There was only a request to have someone look at new people signing up for
the list or for the WIKI to make sure that they were real live people and
not robots or spammers.

On another group - we started getting spam and then porn (including links to
'teen voyeur' sites and sites that specialized in different orifices) on our
public list. When we got ONE spam (I think it was just one) on a TEITAC
resource, the request came up. So we referred it up since it was not
appropriate for us to discuss at our subcommittee level.

So the request or suggestion was that the chairs, or this committee, or
whatever, think about how to do a moderated sign up to avoid it... (or to
have something in place so we could implement it if we started getting
objectionable postings).

We can wait to see if the problem surfaces here as far as I'm concerned. We
just should think about it so we can respond if the problem does appear.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Bailey Bruce
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:50 AM
> To: TEITAC Communications Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tools] Requests from General for future
> considerations
>
> > This is probably a discussion for the main committee meeting,
>
> That was the request.
>
> > but what is the reason for limiting subcommittee membership and
> participation?
>
> I did not follow the logic myself, you will have to ask Peter
> Korn to articulate the concern. The Chair of the
> subcommittee (Gregg) specifically asked me to pass along the
> message to Committee Chairs and DFO (all of whom are
> subscribed to the tools list) and I did so without comment.
> There was not a poll for consensus on the point. With the
> exception of the tools list, I try not to share my opinion on
> Teitac discussions.
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: Requests from General for future considerations"
• Previous message in Thread: Bailey Bruce: "Re: Requests from General forfutureconsiderations"