Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:12:16 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>, "WSFA list" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Hi from ern! Wsfa list, minutes
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
At 08:46 PM 11/18/2005 GMT, Ern wrote:
>The yahoo list is just a test site to see what's available out there, and
I'm by no means in love with it as the only option.
>
>I specifically didn't throw it open to everyone because I didn't want to
give the appearance of it being "the" official list.
Thank you for the update. I'm glad this is the case.
>I did use it to send a draft of the minutes around, mostly for spelling
and name edits before I embarrased myself in front of a larger audience.
How would you like corrections sent to you? I don't know if I'll be at the
meeting tonight...seems doubtful, but we'll see. I have a marked up
printout of the version that Elspeth provided a pointer to. Mostly typos,
but there are three or four more substantive issues. I expect you've heard
about the name ones already, but that still leaves a couple more places
where it isn't clear what was voted on or who did what and those should get
cleared up for posterity.
-- Mike B.
From twhite8 at cox.net Fri Nov 18 18:38:54 2005
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:38:56 -0500
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Concerning the draft of WSFA minutes; WSFA lists
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
N Lynch wrote:
> --- Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote: [snipped for
> length]
> > This was news to me and, it seems, to everyone who wasn't at that
> > meeting. (That Keith is *not* the proprietor of the WSFA list
> > should go
>
> Let's try to nip this in the bud, as unfannish as that may be, before
> anymore misunderstandings occur. The question - and it was just that
> - a QUESTION - was: is a non-WSFA member was allowed to have a WSFA
> email address? The QUESTION (if I could use italics I would -
> consider this italics) came up because, back in the dim mists of
> time, there was some motion passed about non-members of WSFA not
> being able to use a WSFA.org email address. Don't recall the
> circumstances. When the QUESTION was asked, it was answered that
> yes, indeed there was memory that a non-member could not use a
> WSFA.org email address. The next QUESTION - just a QUESTION - was if
> Keith had dropped out of the club or just from the duties. A
> reasonable clarification, if I could offer an opinion, and the answer
> was he had dropped out of the club totally.
>
> So, combine the two answers and the QUESTION was, to the best of my
> recollection, should the WSFAlist be run by a non-WSFA member with a
> WSFA.org email address when one of the rules was that a non-member
> could not use a WSFA.org email address?
>
> After that, there was a lot of talk and people volunteering to look
> into other sites, etc. I'm not sure if it was at the meeting that I
> heard the suggestion that all Keith had to do was change the email
> address to his own, which he has done, I guess.
>
> This still leaves a QUESTION about lists and what-not. There was also
> a suggestion at the meeting to drop the whole idea of discussion from
> the WSFAlist and make it announcement only.
WSFA hasn't been very fannish since the '50s, but this suggestion --
"drop the whole idea of discussion" -- is *anti*fannish.
And, as eny fule kno, this list is not hosted by WSFA.org, but by
KeithLynch.net.
It sounds very much like endruns are being made, quickly, maybe even
desperately, to transform WSFA and its extensions (like this list) into
an authoritarian-controlled situation. Well, *that* will attract more
members to make up for those who have departed, won't it?
Feh.
--Ted White