[sudo-discuss] Fwd: [omni-discuss] email archives for list members only, except announce?

[Matthew Senate]

What do folks think about this discussion on the *omni-discuss* email list?

Curious about your thoughts.

// Matt

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew Senate <mattsenate at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: [omni-discuss] email archives for list members only, except
announce?
To: yar <yardenack at gmail.com>
Cc: "discuss at lists.omnicommons.org" <discuss at lists.omnicommons.org>


David,

I understand what you're sharing about the experiences you have had with
people seeking voice and space in this project.

However, I do not believe that flipping bits from public to private on our
email list archives will change that. I think Jordan's implementation of a
*helpdesk@* list (private archives to protect senders), and leveraging
clear public-facing, private (or semi-private), and alternative
communication channels (e.g. physical "anonymous comment box" by the front
door) are all *excellent* ways to approach these situations. We should set
up a *whistleblower at lists.omnicommons.org
<whistleblower at lists.omnicommons.org> *or *leaks at lists.omnicommons.org
<leaks at lists.omnicommons.org>* for instance!

Historically, I have had more than a handful of conversations with folks
(some active members, other allies elsewhere in the world) who have used
and read the public archives of the sudo room email lists for their
information and for all of our benefit. We depend on this form of
participation to continue to exist. Further, we link to these discussions
in our email threads, on the wiki, and elsewhere.

We must be *clear* about what is *public* versus *private,* but we should
challenge ourselves to make more communications available (indexed by
google also means we can link to it on the public web... the structure of
the web that was valuable *even before *search engines and the information
search engines use to crawl content and formulate rankings, etc). We can
also encourage search engines not to index this content to keep it
unsearchable, but probably the folks who typically want to search it will
be us and our community.

To me, a good number of our problems right now correspond to *access*,
*transparency*, and *engaging new participants*. In light of these issues,
there is a clear direction for us to travel in which we should value *"open,
public discourses over closed, proprietary processes"* as well as *"access
and transparency over exclusivity"* in order to *"solve real problems over
hypotheticals, while respecting visions of the future"* -
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#Values

All three of us on this thread so far are sudo room members, what do you
all think about these values I've shared?

// Matt

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:11 PM, yar <yardenack at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:51 PM, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to help you welcome new members - if I can get those
> notices, I
> > will reply and copy you and Jenny.
>
> We already have a list called "helpdesk" which is for receiving
> private emails about the omni, so if we all CC helpdesk then others
> know what's being done and how it's being done. Perhaps if we notice
> subscriptions from somebody new, we can forward the request to
> helpdesk!
>
> Anybody interested in being part of the general email liaison /
> outreach team, please subscribe. :)
>
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/helpdesk
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.omnicommons.org
> https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20141004/f8f1c128/attachment.html>