ADMIN/MEMB: Damn. Scrubbing again.

[Cindy C.]

Hey,

Amanda (on scrubbing):

> Okay, I'd understood that as things stood on FAQ, this had not been 
> decided yet. 

Well, I thought that we did have a new-and-improved scrubbing policy
with a flashy new prefix, but perhaps we need to discuss this further.  

I proposed a policy in Messages 2320 and 2328.  

For ease of reference, here it is:

*************************

A proposal, then.

How about if this group decides to review its archives before new
members arrive and to delete anything that might embarrass a new
member, as we have done in the past? If MEG comes up with some
compelling reason to handle things differently, they can tell us and
we can reconsider our decision, of course. This proposal will avoid
delay in bringing in new members, it will avoid spending any more time
and effort on the issue, and it will side-step all of those sticky
autonomy issues as well! Ever So Awesome!

How about if no one objects to this proposal in the next few days,
we'll consider that to be our group consensus decision? Or, if we
prefer to go with majority rule on this one, I guess we could draft
and run a poll.

*********************

Amanda and Abigail replied and objected.  I then experienced sharp
pains in my abdomen:

**********************

<low moan>

It's *not* a big issue. That's what I've been trying to say!

The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring in
new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
embarrassing mentions of themselves). It works *fine.* We have never,
*ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know. We rarely even need to
*think* about it. No one has provided a single reason why the status
quo needs to be disturbed.

I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.

So if everyone thinks the status quo is just fine, then we are done
here. If someone has a good reason why we need to *change* our
scrubbing policy, perhaps they could state what that reason is so we
could consider it? Otherwise, I really think we are in very good shape
here.

**************************

There were no objections and no further discussion.  I thought we were
finished.

OK.  Well, it seems that we have to decide this scrubbing issue before
we bring in new people so perhaps we should do so as quickly as we can
so we don't further delay the arrival of our new members.


Amanda:

>I definitely had never, before the recent discussions, 
> been aware that this took place, and I object to it, and I honestly 
> apologize if a silence imposed by my not noticing a poll go by, let 
> it seem that I agreed.

No, no poll.  I had really hoped we could handle this with a consensus
proposal.

I suppose, then, that we need to consider two separate policies, one
for messages already in our archives and one for future messages --
the latter messages to be written with full knowledge of what our
scrubbing policy will be.  A comprehensive proposal, then  . . . 

First, we should confirm that we will delete archived posts bearing
the "MEMB" prefix that contain unflattering references.  That was the
whole point of the prefix.  

Second, we must consider past messages in the archives that were
written either: (1) by FAQers who had no idea that the archives would
be scrubbed to delete insulting or offensive references to arriving
members, or (2) by FAQers who *did* know that the archives would be
scrubbed and made candid assessments in reliance on the belief that
such remarks would be deleted before new FAQ members arrived.

I propose that these messages by scrubbed.  Group 1 adherents probably
didn't say anything offensive anyway, but we can't be certain about
which FAQers had an accurate understanding of our scrubbing policy. 
Group 2 surely understood, though, and it would be *wrong* to change
the rules retroactively as to Group 2, who relied on the scrubbing
policy in deciding what to say in the past.

For future posts (defined as posts written after we formally decide
this issue), I would propose that posts bearing the "MEMB" prefix be
scrubbed (meaning deleted if they contain objectionable references to
incoming members).  I would propose that anyone can delete their own
posts anytime for any reason.  I would propose that if someone quotes
someone else's statement that contains objectionable references, then
the original author can instruct that the post be deleted (don't quote
others if you wish to be absolutely sure your words will remain in the
archives indefinitely).

Finally, I propose that whoever scrubs the archives retain a copy
off-list of whatever is scrubbed *or* forward the scrubbed post to its
author for safekeeping before deleting it.  Anyone who wishes to make
sure they have a complete archive of everything ever posted here
should change their delivery option to "Individual E-mail" or "Daily
Digest."  This way, no history will be lost.

Any objections?

Amanda:

> I, speaking only as a FAQ member and not caring what other lists do, 
> won't agree to a standard scrubbing policy that extends past one 
> poster's right to delete their own words.

I assume that you'll abide by the group decision, though.  Am I right?

Cindy