Listowners-L ArchivesArchiver > Listowners > 2002-02 > 1014949314
From: "Andrew Billinghurst" <>
Subject: Re: [LO] How About Boards@Ancestry.com???
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:21:54 +1100
It is partly political and you know that. For the sake of practicality, sanity and
reasonableness the policy is that there has to be agreement between the board and admin.
That policy is not about to be reviewed in the short term for both logistic and strategic
Here endeth the matter (I hope) as future discussions at this time will not promote this
above more important issues.
On 28 Feb 2002 at 20:56, <> wrote:
> In a message dated 2/28/02 1:57:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > List-admins cannot be given the ability to turn gateways off/on at the
> > because it
> > is to be jointly agreed between both admins. There is no current way for
> > the two systems
> > (boards and lists) to talk to each other to identify common admins, hence
> > switch. It
> > is something that we know about and is on the development plans. No
> > promises.
> I wasn't going to comment on this--I really wasn't. <g> I realize my comments
> that follow could be considered sacrilegious to some. However, I've been
> thinking about it and thinking about it. Under the GenConnect system we had
> Pam's nifty little tool that double-checked to see that someone was the admin
> of both list and board before the gateway would be turned on
> automatically--which of course we no longer have under the new boards. So
> having the list and board admin agree was sort of built into the system and
> didn't add much extra work for staff.
> I also know that from the very beginning the gateway concept was considered
> to be something that required both list and board admin agreement--but to be
> perfectly honest I've never completely understood why. When you really stop
> and think about it--what effect does having the gateway ON OR OFF have on the
> *board* or on the *board admin*? None at all other than having the little
> yellow envelope icon and the blurb about the messages also being posted to
> the list--that's it. The authors of the posts own their posts and as long as
> THEY are informed that their posts are being gatewayed (or aren't) I see no
> reason why the board admins need to agree--because gatewaying has NO effect
> whatsoever on how they maintain their boards.
> The list admin and list subscribers are the ones affected directly by the
> gateway. We already allow the list admin single-handedly to write to board
> staff to turn the gateway OFF without consulting the board admin--so why not
> allow the list admin to turn the gateway on (perhaps all in one step) from
> the list Tools page Customize Settings box? Such a policy would simplify
> matters greatly for admins and for staff and shouldn't interfere with
> anyone's control and management of their lists and boards. The board admin
> doesn't own the posts on their boards--so why should they control the
> gateway? The gateway is primarily a list thing--and in my opinion the
> decision whether or not to use the gateway should be in the hands of the list
> admin. The only part of the gateway process that I can see requiring staff
> intervention is the pairing process.
> I realize that this isn't something any of us (users, admins, or list/board
> staff) can decide--none of us are responsible for changing policy--this is
> just my opinion as to what I think should be done by those who DO make the
|Re: [LO] How About Boards@Ancestry.com??? by "Andrew Billinghurst" <>|