for the list members

users
#1

Thinking the list should be aware of this, I'm sending to the list.

       In response to you, Brian Barker - who doesn't seem to be listed as
a moderator BTW, I'm copying here part of the rules:

"To release it to the list, please send a message to <> which can usually be
done simply by replying to this message"

          which does not state there is only one way - note 'usually' -
therefore when a message has not been released to the list,
              yet I think it should be, I will so do ... & if I have
something to say in response, I shall so do.

#2

Hello Anne,

It looks to me and to others that despite being one of the moderators of this
mailing list, you may not be fully aware of the role and responsibility such
a title entails. Below are two links to the Netiquette and standard
guidelines for good behaviours on mailing list. These guidelines have existed
pretty much since the beginning of the Internet and Usenet groups (well in
the seventies).
You may choose to disregard them completely, even though most, if not all of
them are strongly accepted and desired behaviour. We are a community, and it
works better when people adhere to its basic rules. Disclosing private emails
makes list subscribers very uncomfortable, no matter how you feel about
this.

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.html

https://www.mail-list.com/mailing-list-etiquette/

I hope this will help you,

#3

o I was courteous enough to make my suggestion privately, so as not to embarrass you. It is inappropriate for you to publicise my private correspondence (though I am in no way embarrassed by it). It is also weird that you should want to advertise your mistake to people around the world. But chacun à son goût.

o No, of course I am not a moderator, but that doesn't stop my noticing your mistake. I don't need to be a murderer to know that murder is a Bad Thing.

o The "rule" you quote invites you to send *a* message - not *the* query message in question - in order to release the query message to the list. To do this, you reply to the moderation request, not to the original message, and you send the reply not to the list itself but to the list processor, of course. You have cheekily excised the appropriate address (not the list's address) from the angle brackets in your quotation above. That different address would make very clear the meaning of the "rule".

o The "usually" does not mean what you claim. It doesn't mean that there are alternatives - though indeed there are. It means that replying to the moderation request (to the list processor, not the list) will work if the list processor has been configured to allow that method. In any case, the alternative will almost certainly be to use a web interface to the list processor. It will certainly not be to cut the text of the original message from your moderation request and to create a new message and thread as if from you.

o Of course you are very welcome to make your own comments on messages; you implication that this is being criticised is a straw man. But the way to do that - as I patiently explained again above - is first to approve the message and then, if you wish, to reply to it. But for the threading to work properly and for people to be able to see what is happening, you need to reply to the copy of the original message that - like other subscribers - you will receive from the list once it has been approved, not to carve up the moderation request and misuse that to create a new message of your own.

o You can see from http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/nabble/ that "local help by anne-ology" is wrongly listed as if it is a new message from you, not a reply.

There is no shame in not understanding things or indeed in making mistakes. But it is reasonable that when things are explained to you or errors pointed out, you should remedy the problem. I'm guessing that there must be other moderators and that they could help you get up to speed. If you want to discuss this further (which I am happy to do), may I suggest that we don't trouble the list with the conversations?

Thanks.

Brian Barker