RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Well posted and said,

Somethings are private, let them stay that way.
Otherthings must be open.
@largess must be open or it is not.
Please walk and do not run.

Donations and contributions must start to flow.
I have already posted minimum requirements and will again it asked.

eric

> It is not a matter of semantics or viewing something in-accessible it
> is the simple fact that there is no need for secrecy, certainly not
> "debugging" information or design, the members have a right to see,
> read and if need be participate.
> 
> I agree on a forum where members can not post, but they should be able
> to read and post on the maillists their opinion on that. It is called
> openess.
> 
> Hiding it is not the solution, opening it up is.
> 
> Abel
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Holt [mailto:jefftttt@txucom.net] 
>> Sent: 12 July 2003 22:27
>> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
>> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
>> 
>> 
>> RE: Regarding the Private Webteam Forum topic vs. the General 
>> Webteam Topic.
>> 
>> I agree with Hugh that there is a need for some technical 
>> information to be secure from public view, such as URLs and 
>> debugging information.  I believe it might also be possible 
>> to hide the existence of that closed forum, but will defer 
>> that to Mr. Chirita to research and implement. Abel does have 
>> a point in that seeing a "private" forum and not being able 
>> to access it will be like holding a candy over the reach of a 
>> young child, they will try and jump to get it, lol....
>> 
>> The General Webteam topic should be used for the general 
>> membership to make contributions, suggestions, or trouble 
>> reports and as such must be open to the entire membership.  
>> The semantics may be the only difficulty
>> - forum as opposed to discussion as opposed to topic as 
>> opposed to thread, and so forth.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>>  
>> Jeff Holt
>> Jefftttt@txucom.net
>> www.tejas-info-services.com
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com] 
>> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 3:38 PM
>> To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
>> Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
>> 
>> But not adequately.
>> 
>> It is very easy to use a part of the icannatlarge server for 
>> such pages, or they can be emailed, or uploadedand ulled by 
>> the recipients, many a solution that doesn't any form of 
>> secrecy nad if this is the prefered method, then email in 
>> private, though it defeats the whole "openess" idea. It means 
>> simply that you do not allow people to see anything that is 
>> in progress, meaning also that no comments or input can be 
>> given before a fait a complait is reached.
>> 
>> This is a membership first process, in all stages and on all 
>> fronts, withholding anything from the membership that is not 
>> strictly person-bound (privacy data) is against everything 
>> this organization stands for.
>> 
>> Members have a right to read what the panel does and posts, 
>> members have a right to see what the comms are doing. Private 
>> lists all to easy become the source for all discussion on 
>> that comm and the membership has no way of verifying what is 
>> done and how it is done or why it is done.
>> 
>> I remain opposed to the closed group on the forums.
>> 
>> Abel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Hugh Blair [mailto:hblair@hotfootmail.com]
>> > Sent: 12 July 2003 21:29
>> > To: abel@able-towers.com
>> > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Forum Usage at dot-org
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Abel Wisman
>> > > 
>> > > I fail to see what needs to be so "private" that matters 
>> concerning
>> > > web-comm can not be discussed in public.
>> > > 
>> > > I would like to see an example of that information that the world 
>> > > has no need of knowledge of.
>> > 
>> > Here's one example from just today and then this is my last
>> > post on this subject.
>> > 
>> > Today I posted to my personal server some pages and a ZIP
>> > that the webmaster might want to use on the site. It was the 
>> > best way for him to see how they looked and get the page code. In 
>> > NO way do I want that posting to be public - it's considered
>> > a staging site. 
>> > 
>> > If that section of the forum was public, I'd be getting hits
>> > from who knows where and who knows how many, and those pages 
>> > would then be public before they'd been looked at by the 
>> > webmaster who may want changes to them.
>> > 
>> > Asked. Answered.
>> > 
>> > Hugh
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
>> additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
>> additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de For
> additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de