Re: Topics, on and off

[Steve Wax <stevewx -at- ESKIMO -dot- COM>]

>> In a manner of speaking, all of us on this list are guests in Eric's
>> house.
>> As such, isn't it rather rude of us to argue with the host when he makes
>> a request? Would we insist on bringing say, a dog into his house--would
>> we smoke--if explicitly asked not to? I would hope not.

>Absolutely right! Whoever sent this is 100% correct.

Not entirely, because the analogy is not entirely apt. Eric owns the list to
enable a professional forum. The character of what is permissible, what are
valid or invalid topics, is achieved largely through dialogue with Eric
about the legitimate concerns and interests of the technical communications
community; the rules are not simply the result of Eric's personal opinions,
reasonable though they generally are. He publishes the rules and he enforces
them. But he is open to reason, he is open to dialogue, as he should be if
his rules are to remain useful to the list's subscribers. The list is not
his private preserve, his house. It's a service he provides for a community
he cares about.

I'd propose a different analogy. Eric's the kid who brings the ball that we
all play the game with. He could say, "If you don't play my way I'm going to
pick up my ball and go home and see how you like it!" He has the right.  But
it wouldn't say much for *his* character either. I believe he takes another
approach. Once the game is in motion, he states his opinion and pulls rank
if he absolutely has to (he doesn't want to see the game degenerate into
chaos or people injured or windows broken). But more often he listens to
dialogue, invites and welcomes it. He understands that he may not have all
the answers and that a professional community can have a wide variety of
opinion on its concerns and interests. He knows that it is in the
community's interest to hear out those opinions, to let each case be made
and decided on its merits. As someone else remarked in another context
(don't recall who and don't want to attribute erroneously, Paul!), "I
thought we were all adults!"

>The rules on this list are neither too harsh or lenient.

I personally agree. But it's still a subjective statement. It's not a matter
of harsh or lenient; rather it's a question of pertinent or ... impertinent ;).

>When we subscribe to this list we make an agreement to abide by the rules.
>If you can't agree to abide by the rules or
>don't have the character to abide by your agreement, you should sign off of
>this list.

I don't know about you, but I feel like I just got out of the principal's
office. All right, Eric's professional integrity and his respect for the TW
community is evident. We're lucky to have him. And I agree that his ultimate
decision, as listowner, is final. However, rather than reflexively salute
all the rules, it may be in the community's interest to explore and test the
envelope, to revisit the rules and see which still apply and to what they
apply, to ask if new ones should be adopted or existing ones modified to
handle new issues and concerns. This is simply being responsive to that
hoary, ubiquitous "rapidly changing environment."

Questioning a rule or challenging an application of it does not equate to
rudeness or flawed character. Behind the question lies a different
perspective. Let's understand it, look through its points of view, before we
decide what to do with it.

--steve wax (stevewx -at- eskimo -dot- com)