Re: The thread that would not die. (Mandating signatures)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <9412021551.AA04657@snark.imsi.com>, Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> wrote:
John Schofield says:
It is silly to talk of someone "owning" the list. The list is a community. The only possible owners are the people in the community. If we all left, Eric would still have control over the list--but the list would be worthless.
It is silly to talk of someone "owning" a restaurant. The restaurant is a community. The only possible owners are the people in the community. If the patrons all left, Chef Joey would still have control over the restaurant -- but the restaurant would be worthless.
You continue to confuse (deliberately?) a community with the place it meets. "List" is being used in two senses -- and you continue to interpret it only as the instance of majordomo on toad.com. That's a worthless interpretation as nobody disputes that Eric controls that agent. As far as I'm concerned, if a message has gone out to every address on the "cypherpunks" list, I don't give a shit whether or not it went through toad.com first: it went to cypherpunks. - -- Todd Masco | "Roam home to a dome, Where Georgian and Gothic once stood cactus@hks.net | Now chemical bonds alone guard our blond(e)s, cactus@bb.com | And even the plumbing looks good." - B Fuller -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBFAwUBLt9v/CoZzwIn1bdtAQFY6gGA0EVd9/2BIoe5ORzfPePZxxoA7WJs/jkm PEMkdRGJNpih+x6xLOnlv2+BoBTdEXgj =Qrv2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address belonging to the signature and forwarded.]
owner-cypherpunks@hks.net says:
Perry E. Metzger <perry@imsi.com> wrote:
John Schofield says:
It is silly to talk of someone "owning" the list. The list is a community. The only possible owners are the people in the community. If we all left, Eric would still have control over the list--but the list would be worthless.
It is silly to talk of someone "owning" a restaurant. The restaurant is a community. The only possible owners are the people in the community. If the patrons all left, Chef Joey would still have control over the restaurant -- but the restaurant would be worthless.
You continue to confuse (deliberately?) a community with the place it meets.
You continue to confuse the way the mailing list functions with the people that use it. The question of whether Eric can require that all subscribers to the list wear blue mud smeared over their faces at all times is what we are discussing -- that is, does he have proprietary control over the way the list is run. The list is run with resources he has been granted dominion over. It appears that he's completely free to take any action he likes. You are, of course, free to sugges that he not do so, and you are also free to stop using his resources in disgust. This has been driven into the ground, so I won't continue it. However, I would suggest that all the people who think Eric doesn't have absolute control here attempt to figure out how to impose any rule or regulation without his consent, or how to stop him from implementing anything without your consent. (The fact that Eric has no interest in ruining the list and that we would prefer that he not wreck it is immaterial, by the way -- he is free to do so if he desires to, and that is what counts.)
participants (2)
-
owner-cypherpunks＠hks.net -
Perry E. Metzger