[buug] BUUG list policy?

Michael Paoli Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu
Fri Dec 21 11:43:23 PST 2012

BUUG list policy

Well, we did discuss it a bit at the BUUG meeting yesterday.

No need to change descriptions of policy quite yet.  Thought we'd also
mention the general idea(s) on the list, and see if we can reach - if
not consensus, perhaps at least minimal dissent.

So, anyway, at least as proposed rough draft, here's at least
approximately what we've come up with so far.

Put the policy on the list page, not the main page, and have the main
page essentially refer to the list page regarding policy.  This avoids
potential issues of them being inconsistent, or needing to maintain two
separate copies in consistent manner.  So, for main page, perhaps
something like:

   In addition to meetings, we have a mailing list to communicate. The
   mailing list is open to everyone, regardless of where they live or
   even whether or not they can attend the meetings.<P>

   For list rules/policy and to subscribe to the list, visit the
   <a href="http://buug.org/mailman/listinfo/buug">list information</a>

   You can also review the
   <a href="http://buug.org/pipermail/buug/">mailing list archives</A>.

As to list policy proper, most of the discussion was around commercial
postings, unsolicited commercial postings, and job postings.  There was
also good idea of having a "when in doubt, ask" part of policy.

As to job postings, mostly there's desire to avoid lots of postings from
recruiters, agencies, job boards, HR departments, etc. essentially
plastering list with most anything and everything they have - even if
the field/job/location might be relevant.  This also tended to be quite
an issue for many lists and the like, in the dot com boom days - and
such issue(s) might potentially recur in future.  So, there doesn't
seem (at least from those I polled) to be an outright objection to "job
postings", but more like an "inside track" connection.  E.g. if one is
the hiring manager for the position (and would be direct supervisor of
the position), or it is opening for position that would be close peer
in same work area where one works, and one is quite familiar with the
position, then that is - or at least may - generally be okay to post.
But again, not allowing something like HR department or persons within
to post of every Unix/Linux/BSD/etc. or related opening they have that
comes up - even if it's in the Bay Area.  I think the idea there, is to
limit it to folks intimately familiar with the position (and much more
so than HR department, or recruiter, or agency).

As to "commercial" postings, no *unsolicited* commercial postings.  If
it's actually *solicited* - e.g. person(s) specifically ask for and
request the information, that may be "okay" - again, not looking for
"sales pitches" - but rather information, even if from a commercial
source, and *only* when expressly *solicited*.

Anyway, attempting to boil that down into something much more concise
for rules/policy, this is what I come up with for a (rough?) draft:
Mailing list for the
<A HREF="http://www.buug.org/">Berkeley Unix User group (BUUG)</A>.

An open forum for all things related to Unix.

Note: Unsolicited commercial E-mail is not allowed.
Job postings?  Only if you're intimately familiar with the position, as
in you are the hiring manager and would be direct supervisor for the
position, or it's a close peer position you very regularly do or would
work with and are highly familiar with the position.  Recruiter/agency
doesn't qualify as "intimately familiar", nor does being in HR for the
Be nice, don't be annoying.
When in doubt, ask first (on the list).

To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the
<A HREF="http://buug.org/pipermail/buug/">BUUG Archives</A>.

Anyway, policy also needn't be "cast in stone", and can be
changed/updated/clarified if/as needed, but also shouldn't be or need to
be changing it willy-nilly.

> From: "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli at cal.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: BUUG list policy?
> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:15:03 -0800

> I recently noticed on:
> http://buug.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> That BUUG list policy isn't stated there, however it was
> ("historically") stated on the list page before the migration of the
> list to the balug.org domain:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20100630003254/http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug
> However, list policy is also stated/implied on:
> http://www.buug.org/
> What's stated there, however, matches neither what was, nor is, on the
> list page itself.
> Anyway, perhaps we can discuss this at this evening's BUUG meeting a bit
> (and/or on list a bit if/as needed), and figure out what the policy
> ought to say, and have http://buug.org/mailman/listinfo/buug and
> possibly also
> http://www.buug.org/
> updated so they're consistent.
> In the interim, I'd say what's stated on
> http://www.buug.org/
> takes precedence, as list policy isn't currently stated elsewhere on the
> site in any "official" location.

More information about the buug mailing list