From chemistry-request@server.ccl.net Tue Jan 22 20:25:33 2002 Received: from cascara.uvic.ca (root@[142.104.5.28]) by server.ccl.net (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g0N1PXc01865 for ; 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 To: chemistry@ccl.net cc: Phillip Matz , , Subject: Re: CCL:question of netiquette In-Reply-To: <000001c1a2f2$772f79f0$1200a8c0@chem.wsu.edu> Message-ID: 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.