Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 18:08:54 -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>

samlubell at verizon.net wrote:
> > So, is *Keith* "using" a wsfa.org address, or is *WSFA* using
> > keith's list, at his invitation, to have a place for members and
> > ex-members to chat?
>
>  The latter.  The address of this list is WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net.
>  There may be a wsfa.org address that automatically forwards to this
>  list but that could and probably will change.
>
> > We'll need someone to take over Keith's duties as contact,
> > webmaster, etc.  (
>
>  The secretary is in charge of all club publications.  He can delegate
>  any of these including the website to others.
>
> > How is it better for WSFA to take on the task of running its own
> > list, rather than piggybacking on Keith's (so long as his
> > invitation to do so remains open anyway)??  I've heard no valid
> > complaints about Keith's management of this list...he's done a fine
> > job, and I doubt we are going to find a better or cheaper
> > alternative anywhere.
>
>  Simply that a list controlled by WSFA is subject to WSFA's control.
>  If the club decides we want a moderated list or a members-only list,
>  or for the list to be closed for a month to stop flamewar tempers, we
>  can on a list we control.  But we'd have no power over a list run by
>  a third-party on his own equipment.
>
>  Absolutely, Keith has done an amazing job on this list.  It's spam
>  free, allows any current or former member to post using a variety of
>  addresses, and has no advertising.  The issue is not Keith, it's just
>  a matter of control.

Again, that sounds ominous.  Control of *what* exactly?

--Ted White