ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings

[Kelley]

Tom:
> Just to note here, I am following all of the rules
> laid out in the -Feeback rules file and on the 
> -Feedback homepage. 
> 
> I am not insulting, attacking, or criticizing
> individuals in this post. No ad hominems to be found
> here. But I will candidly discuss list policy, which,
> as far as I understand, is not only allowed on 
> -Feedback, but is actually the reason why this list
> was created in the first place. 
> 
> If I do not understand the -Feedback guidelines
> accurately, please advise. >>>

Your post is fine, Tom; has someone accused you of doing otherwise??
 
> Tom replies:
> Just so we're all on the same page, here: I downloaded
> a copy of the hbfile on 03-December-2003... about six
> weeks ago. According to *that* version of the
> document, the file had last been updated on
> 20-November-2003. >>>

Debbie has already clarified this, so I won't repeat her here.
 
> The clause that Kelley is citing is *not* in the copy
> of the hbfile that I have from this past December,
> which means that this clause was not in existence when
> I, and most of my peers here signed up for HPfGU. (For
> the record, I signed up last January, under the terms
> of the old hbfile.) >>>

According to main list memberships, you joined on 20 Jan 03 (happy 
anniversary!); I've just uploaded to the Files section here on 
Feedback a copy of the HBF that was in effect at that time, in fact 
it had just been updated on 5 Jan 03.

<snipped what Debbie's already clarified> 

> The new clause is a very recent addition that was put
> into effect (on 05-December-2003, according to the new
> hbfile) without notifying us or consulting the list
> membership. >>>

Incorrect, Tom, sorry.  It is *not* a new clause, and it is *not* 
a "very recent addition".  I've also uploaded copies of the 29 May 03 
HBF which is still available on the main list, 
titled "oldhbfile.html".  These can be found in the Files section, in 
the Admin Files folder.

Further, I've also uploaded the oldest copy of the HBF that I can 
find in my many folders <g>, one dated 28 April 02.  Please see 
section 1.5 in each of these, Tom.

> Therefore I do not believe that my terms
> of membership can be affected this substantially,
> involving my own copyright, without my permission, or
> at the very least, without my notification. 
>
> So, I guess the most logical questions are, "Why was
> that quote added to the hbfile on 05-December-2003,"
> and "How did the List Admin come to decide that 'in
> its discretion' it did not have to notify the list
> membership that a major change in copyright rules had
> just been put into effect?" 
> 
> Succinctly: "Why weren't we told about it?"
> 
> IMHO, that single clause is a *highly* significant
> change, and I find it hard to believe that it would be
> added surreptitiously without notifying the general
> list membership in one way or another. Mistakes
> happen, of course, but I'm not certain that the
> addition of a calculated clause such as this can
> accurately be classified as a "mistake." 
> 
> As you can see from this discussion, people are fairly
> concerned about their copyrights and their availablity
> to the general internet-going public, hence the
> discussion we're having now. IMHO, a change of that
> sort constitutes a massive alteration of the rules
> that we agreed to when we signed up. I may be wrong,
> by I never saw any Admin messages to that effect.
> 
> I noted yesterday that the HPfGU Admin team reserves
> the right to make alterations to the hbfile without
> notifying the list membership. It says so in the
> hbfile. "We will make changes to anything written here
> from time to time as needed, and will notify list
> members of those changes at our discretion." In
> actuality, this clause *itself* is also a relatively
> new change, as it is not included in a copy of the
> hbfile that I have stored that is dated
> 29-August-2003.
> 
> However, quibbling over that change aside, I also
> suggested yesterday that *this* - the discussion over
> copyright - was not one of those acceptible situations
> in which changes could be made without permission, or
> at least, again, notification. In many cases, I
> understand that the Admin team may make small
> adjustments that do not affect the general list
> membership too much. I'm not interested in a semantic
> debate involving which pronoun is more appropriate to
> use, and correcting typographical errors.
> 
> However - big however here - again, access to and
> copyright of my work is not a matter that the Admin
> team has sole right to determine, and it is
> inappropriate, IMHO, to make a change of this nature
> without telling everyone about it. I would earnestly
> suggest that in the future, changes of this magnitide
> be relayed to the general community in some form or
> another.
> 
> Furthermore, since this was not a rule that I signed
> up under, I also believe that I am not subject to the
> change, as I was not consulted about it. In effect, I
> believe that I - and everyone else who joined prior to
> 12-05-2003 - am grandfathered out of this clause 
> because this is a substantial change that I was not
> consulted on. Nor, for that matter, was this right
> ever expressly granted by me or by the other members
> of this list. So again, we return to the basic
> discussion point: in order to use my work, you must
> have my permission.
> 
> If I signed up today, then as Talisman pointed out, I
> would understand that this applied to me. However,
> since I did not, I do not believe that it does apply
> to me, nor do I believe that it is fair-play to try to
> make me acquiesce to a rule that was put into effect
> without my knowledge.
> 
> If you don't mind the question, again, "why weren't we
> notified about that change, since it concerns such a
> major issue as copyright infringement?" And in a more
> academic sense, since the change was made without
> either the approval or notification of the general
> list membership, what are we going to do about that
> now? >>>

I believe what I've said above has rendered the rest of this moot.
 
> On the topic of "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find
> Them," Erinelli wrote:
> But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each
> post up on the website. What they do is provide a link
> to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order
> to actually view the post, you'd have to be
> a member of HPfGU.
> 
> Tom:
> Yes, I agree that for most of the site, you're
> absolutely correct and this is the case. 
> 
> However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct
> quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There
> are quite a few quotes from members' material,
> actually.
> 
> And at least one of the FP essays directly cites
> members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms,
> and makes those names - as well as the canon positions
> ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Are we
> sure that those people want everyone who accesses that
> site to know what their canon positions are; for
> instance, do you think that an individual would like
> the internet-going public to know that he or she
> believes that Snape could be described as the "Hebrew
> Satan?"
> 
> Is all of FP in violation. No way. 
> Are there possible problems? Absolutely. >>>

Debbie has already addressed this as well.

--Kelley