> >Perhaps we could actually add a one or two liner to the auto-trailer
from
> >the mailing list software to that effect? e.g.:

> >Messages in this list constitute a private discussion between list
members,
> >and any

> Well, hang on on a moment here people ...

> Before I go on, I'll admit, yes, I am sort of biased - I was once a
> columnist for Information Age, where I did a critiquing (read Stewart
> Littlemore style) job on IT media. Nevertheless, I'll proceed ...

> Given that, surely that means that this list is AND should be open to
> public scrutiny. And that means that journalists may, and SHOULD,
> scrutinise it as part of their job (we all know who they probably
are).
> Because, essentially, anything that IS or MAY become public policy
> (official or de facto), such as internet policy, should be under
scrutiny
> and open to criticism.

Boz. Whilst you may wish that this is the case.Surely it's not your
choice nor anyone elses bar the author of a particular message?
Furthermore, surely it's the charter of the list that counts, not your
personal perspective. How on earth can someone hop onto a private list,
instituted by private individuals, paid for by private funds and say "I
think this is important therefore I'll barge in and override/ignore your
own charter"?

If people on the list decide on a private phone conference will you
also insist that such conversations be "under scrutiny and open to
criticism"? If two of us get together over a quiet beer in a pub, do you
also insist on recording that conversation for public scrutiny? Where do
you draw the line and on what basis? What makes a mailing list magicly
public property?

If the poster accepts the default trailer then regardless of the "moral
high ground" you wish to take, surely it's the author's choice, not
yours? Or are you suggesting that there is some overwhelming public
benefit which overrides a poster's own preferences? Heck. We're talking
about a very small part of reality here, not Nuclear proliferation,
state secrets or threats to national security.

> The final question is: This is public policy we're talking about -
are we
> so ashamed of what we say that we want it kept secret? 

This is a tiresome, bogus argument. That a husband has private
discussions with their wife does not mean that they are ashamed of them
does it? Surely it means that the husband and wife share trust values
that are not shared with the greater community. Ditto for the list.

Bottom line: If the list participants of a private list insist that a
condition of subscribing is that you not put any material in the public
domain, then that's the lists choice, not yours. You know the rules, you
know the consequences.

You have but one recourse. Convince enough people on the list that the
condition be removed, otherwise live with it or get off.


Regards.