From chemistry-request \\at// server.ccl.net Tue Jan 22 20:25:33 2002
Received: from cascara.uvic.ca (root {*at*} [142.104.5.28])
	by server.ccl.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0N1PXc01865
	for <chemistry-!at!-ccl.net>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:25:33 -0500
Received: from unix5.uvic.ca (unix5.uvic.ca [142.104.5.117])
	by cascara.uvic.ca (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0N1PEU106694;
	Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:25:14 -0800
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:25:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Roy Jensen <royj-: at :-uvic.ca>
To: chemistry /at\ccl.net
cc: Phillip Matz <matz-: at :-wsunix.wsu.edu>, <jkl-: at :-ccl.net>,
   <dshobe -8 at 8- sud-chemieinc.com>
Subject: Re: CCL:question of netiquette
In-Reply-To: <000001c1a2f2$772f79f0$1200a8c0.,at,.chem.wsu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.43.0201221624070.61316-100000 \\at// unix5.uvic.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I often respond directly to the poster because they are the ones
interested; all of CCL does not need to see every reply. On topics that
might be of more general interest, I ask the poster to summarize to the
CCL. (Read: I am interested in the answer too.) The rules you specified
would reverse if the poster decides to post a summary and therefore be
difficult to apply. Furthermore, someone responding should expect to take
ownership and responsibility of their statements. Legally, an email is no
different than a mailed letter.

A simpler rule would be:
	Ownership of a statement is reported in summaries unless
	the owner explicitly requests to remain anonymous.

Roy Jensen


On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Phillip Matz wrote:
> How about the following:
>
> 1) If the original CCL poster explicitly states they will post summaries
> then the replier (sp) will take it upon themselves to let the poster
> know if it is NOT ok to include their name in the posted summary
> (default assumption is to give credit to all posters; i.e. the burden of
> desiring and receiving privacy is then up to the person offering their
> idea)
>
> 2) If the original CCL poster does not state they will be posting a
> summary then the replier should post to the CCL directly (in which case
> they will receive "idea ownership"), but in the event that the replier
> communicates with the original poster via private email then the replier
> must indicate they desire idea ownership (i.e. the default assumption is
> the replier desires privacy) in the event the original poster is
> requested to post a summary.
>
> Yes? No? Suggestions?
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil Matz


On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Shobe, Dave wrote:
> I have uncertainties about that myself.  There is the arguement that people
> should get credit for their work/ideas, and there is the argument that
> privacy should be respected when the response comes from "person to person"
> e-mail.  The usual practice on CCL seems to be to include the names, but I'm
> not sure that's really the correct thing to do.