On Thu, Apr 30, 1998 at 05:15:48PM -0700, Jason Rasku wrote:
> I did not answer the question? Please tell me what the question
> was again. If I recall correctly it was ``name three mailing lists that
> provide good information, that are not run by cmopetent people,'' If I am
> not mistaken, that is PRECICLY what I did. Okay, I did not name them per
> se, but I DID list them in terms of groups.
The question was phrased in the following fashion:
>True... but many of the most valuable lists on the internet are run by
>people who are not knowledgeable about the technical aspects of proper
I would expect that any such answer would (a) name the mailing lists
explicitly and (b) explain who they are run by and that person(s)'s
level of knowledge and (c) provide adequate justification for why they
should be considered "the most valuable lists on the internet".
> Are you then sugesting that I not run a mailing list? I don't
> have a clue what you are talking about,
If you do not know what those things are, no, you should not be running
a mailing list, because you lack the technical competency to do an
adequate job of it.
> Does a person need to pass a competency exam in order to have
> achieved competency,
I don't know of any such exam, nor would I advocate that route if I did:
"certification exams" are pretty much worthless. This is why I did not
suggest exams as a means of determining competency.
> or is it good enough that their list runs well?
It is *not* good enough. Their list must not only run well, in and
of itself, but it must also be a good neighbor to everyone else on the
Internet. That means (among many, many other things) that it must not
easily lend itself to mailbombing attacks on innocent third parties.
> > You wanna be on a badly-managed, screwed-up, hosed mailing list? That's
> > fine. I have no problem with that -- really, I don't. But when said
> > mailing lists' screwed-up state impacts *me*, I have a huge problem
> > with it.
> And does that include allowing idiots to subscribe to it?
Sure, if that's the way *you* or *I* or *someone* wants to run their list.
I think it's a really stupid idea, but as long as it doesn't impact me,
hey, go for it.
> > And this is starting to happen -- to me, and to other third parties --
> > far more often than before. Hence the need for list managers to either
> > know their stuff *or* get someone who does to handle the mechanics
> > of their list(s).
> This may be a good idea, but many of the lists that I am on would
> not exist if they had to pay for list management.
I did not suggest paying for it. I suggested getting someone to handle
the mechanics of the list and left it open as to how that might be done.
Since most of the Internet has been built with volunteer labor, and there
seems to be an increasing pool of it available, I don't think it would
be *that much* of a problem to find someone to help out.