[PLUG] Proposal for change from the current state of the list.

Brijesh Kartha brij.at.plug at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 10:38:58 PST 2013

As a lurker for sometime now I was in two minds about putting my vote in.
Finally thought might as well.

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Sudhanwa Jogalekar
<sudhanwa.com at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Pluggies,
> We are all aware of the mailing list issues and various threads about the
> same.
> After going through them and considering list-members reactions, there
> were lot of discussions off-list with moderators and many others about
> the issues. Finally, the time has come to change things.
> This is the proposal for change from the current state of the list.
> Please do send your comments, suggestions.
> 1. All the users moderation flag (that is currently set) to be
> removed.


> Any new member joining the list will not get a moderation
> flag set.
-1. I agree with many other people that for initial n number of mails
(where n could be a small number) it would help to keep a policy of all
mails from newcomers are to be moderated. I am ready to help with such
moderation if bandwidth is an issue.

> 2. All the current filters to be removed and started from scratch. Let
> us use the list of filters from Arun Khan's mail to start of the new
> filters list.

+ 1

> 3. Any change (add/delete/modify) of filter and add/remove moderation
> flag for a list member and removing of any list member is to be done
> by voting. 15 votes in favour of the proposal required for approval.
> (eg. 20 votes in favour and 5 negative votes is OK)

0. I am not sure about my own thoughts for this point.

> 4. There will be moderator/s but they will act only once in a week.
> This is considering that there will be hardly anything in moderation
> and
> there will be less filters applicable.

-1  I do not think we need to keep a specific rule of when moderation
should happen. Constant light moderation activity would be required if
newcomers are moderated for a short period.

> Moderators identities will not
> be disclosed.

-1. I do not have a problem with anonymity of moderators but am unclear of
the need. Personally I think it might even help if people know who the
moderators are. However I will not make a case of it as I have honestly not
been an active part of many forums and hence may not have faced stuff that
people in this forum have.

> 5. It is the responsibility of the list members to maintain the list
> active, vibrant and useful. If they feel that some member or post (top
> posting to be allowed or not?) is not appropriate, they should propose
> action against it and that will also be passed through voting.
> +1 Very fair point.

> 6. Considering the above, it will be decided on the list itself if the
> list is to be declared moderated or un-moderated.
> 7. All these decisions will be posted on the PLUG website and will be
> updated according to the decisions on the list.
> RFC remains open till 31 Jan 2013, during which all the initial
> filters, moderation methods etc will be crystalised.
> After that, from Feb 1, 2013, the decisions will be implemented.
> I am missing the deadline by 5-10 mins but let us just assume UK time zone

> Please start different thread for suggesting/approving/voting for
> filters or other actions. Currently, all these postings will also
> undergo current filter rules and moderation. Moderators will ensure
> that there is minimal delay in responding to these mails.
> Please comment/suggest on these points and/or any other things if you
> have in mind.
> Thanks and regards,
> --Sudhanwa Jogalekar
Thank you Sudhanwa as well as all the list members to have debated and
discussed on this matter. As Sankarshan has pointed out in another mail the
key concern which we should really look into is whether we can have a
vibrant list (or maybe the more fundamental question of whether we want a
vibrant list). However these discussions on moderation and filters is a
step in the right direction for sure.


More information about the plug-mail mailing list