Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:12:25 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
        WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New list (was Re: This list is... )
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 2/12/2006 08:07 PM, Rich Lynch wrote:
>--- "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
> > At 2/12/2006 03:43 PM, Michael Walsh wrote:
> > > > kfl at KeithLynch.net 2/12/2006 2:17:02 PM >
> > >
> > >I believe one of the resaons for relocating the official WSFA "chat
> > >list" was that you were no longer a WSFAn.
> >
> > Yes, that was given as the reason, but it doesn't make
> > much sense.  Yahoo
> > isn't a WSFAn either, so the change made didn't alter the
> > situation in a
> > way that corrected that "problem".  Had we moved the list
> > to, say, Steve
> > Smith's machines, with him handling the work, that theory
> > might fly, but we didn't.
>
>That is bogus reasoning.

My point exactly.  The reason we *had* to set up another list was so that
it would be under control of WSFA.  Then we set it up on Yahoo, which gives
us less control than we had before in many ways, and certainly less than if
a WSFA member was running it on their own machine, as would be the case if
Steve hosted it (I believe he offered to, but I can't swear to that.  I do
know that he was looking into the required software as part of the
three-person list investigation committee).

>The WSFA website was maintained
>by Keith on a Panix.com server.  Panix isn't a WSFAmember,
>either.  The WSFA treasury is in a bank that isn't a WSFA
>member.  There is nothing in any bylaw that dictates what
>commercial entities WSFA can or cannot do business with.

Nor is there one that requires that there be a WSFA e-mail list, or that
such a list be run by a WSFA member.

Keith offered to continue hosting his list as long as anyone wanted to post
to it, and letting WSFA use it if it liked, even after he left the
club...and he has continued to do so as your seeing this message
proves.  WSFA decided to set up another list, which it can certainly do,
but to suggest that the reason was that Keith wasn't a WSFA member is
bogus, given that the new list isn't hosted or run by a WSFA member either,
but by a company we have no control over at all, and which is less inclined
to do us favors such as giving us copies of the message archive for
instance, than Keith is.

A WSFA member may have some control over the new list, but that is subject
to Yahoo's whim at any time, for any, or no, reason.  They can bar a member
from posting, delete the list entirely, along with the archived messages,
impose any censorship they feel appropriate (perhaps as a result of local
laws in countries other than ours), or change or abolish the service at any
time, without asking or needing permission and there's not a thing we can
do about it.

The list is also a lot more public on Yahoo than it was with Keith...anyone
in the world can read the WSFA list without needing to be a member of WSFA
or even a member of the WSFA list on Yahoo.  I'm not signed up and I've
read a message on that list...just to see if it could be done.  All you
need is the URL and a web browser...and the URL for the service is well
known.  The archives Keith maintains may be accessible too, but the URL
isn't widely known, and can be changed if needed...or password protection
could be implemented I suspect, if needed.

-- Mike B.
--
An ounce of emotion seems to be equal to a ton of facts.