[fc-uk-discuss] Re: [fc-uk-coord] [Fwd: New subscription request to
list fc-uk-coord from firstname.lastname@example.org]
mjr at phonecoop.coop
Sat Apr 15 07:27:02 BST 2006
Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org>
> This is a debate that I think would be good to have on the main mailing
> list so that it is public. I hope you will therefore not mind me cc'ing
> it there. Comments interleaved below.
I think it would be better if coord archives were made public,
so stuff cc'd out to the public list isn't taken out of context.
If we need secrecy, let's use encryption or take it off-list.
I will help people set up gpg for list use, if needed.
> Taking part in group meetings is useful activity but people are expected
> to do more. The purpose of fc-uk is clearly not to have meetings --
> meetings are there in service of doing other things (our projects).
I disagree. I think group meets are necessary activities, but
rarely useful in themselves.
> > Is demanding that others justify joining a mailing list
> > effective activity?
> No. However it is part of what should be done when someone wants to
> become an active member. What was being asked, quite reasonably in my
> opinion, was what you proposed to work on in your role as an active
For the benefit of discuss subscribers, I remind you it
was suggested fc-uk "should refer [me] to article 5 of the
constitution, and ask how [I intend] to fulfil the criteria
for active membership". I don't consider that asking reasonably.
Maybe the poster intended to ask what I am going to work on,
but that wasn't what that constitutional jargon demanded.
I answered on the art.5 criteria, which I consider variously
ill-defined or absurd, as previously raised on these lists.
I felt there were also some insults implied by the phrasing
(maybe because I wasn't present at the London meetings), but I
haven't directly addressed them, because maybe I misunderstood.
> [...] As explained above I really don't think what is going on here
> is silly rule-book games.
Then I think some people would benefit from "Write what you
mean" (as in http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html#mean ) and
ceasing to cite the constitution instead.
More information about the fc-uk-discuss