[License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas
rick at linuxmafia.com
Fri Feb 28 06:21:57 UTC 2020
Quoting McCoy Smith (mccoy at lexpan.law):
> > On Feb 27, 2020, at 9:24 AM, VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The logic is that discussing naming-and-shaming as a concept is different than actually holding a person up for ridicule or derision.
> > We can discuss the concept without actually implementing it.
> There was some name and shame language fairly early in the thread(s)
> by the individual that started it/them. As far as I can tell it
> slipped through the moderation:
I was glad to disregard that at Pam's wise suggestion, except to calmly
point out that I'd expressed no views whatsoever on the subjects
concerning which Mr. Schulz gratuitously attributed to me highly
disreputable views I had nowhere articulated, nowhere implied, and do
not hold. Beyond that, I respected Pam's wish that the subthread be
dropped, and continue to think she had the right idea.
(If Mr. Schultz is ever motivated to extend a public apology for his
slur, then that IMO would be a creditable thing for him, but I'm
definitely not going to hold my breath waiting.)
On the larger matter, I have great empathy for OSI's listadmin team.
Meaning no criticism of them, their use of the term 'moderation' is a
bit misleading: It appears that, as with most GNU Mailman mailing lists
in recent decades, the Mailman moderation flag is used very sparingly,
and is not applied to most subscribers/topics/etc. routinely. Mostly,
what occurs is what is called in the jargon 'retromoderation', but I
don't want to start expounding on the differences here because that sort
of geeky metadiscussion wouldn't help the noise problem even a bit.
Cheers, "Why doesn't anyone invite copyeditors to parties,
Rick Moen when we're such cool people out with whom to hang?"
rick at linuxmafia.com -- @laureneoneal (Lauren O'Neal)
More information about the License-discuss