+1 for keeping moderation.
More signal to noise is a good thing. You might, however, provide additional or clearer upfront explanation so people understand the request is more about setting tone and intention than filtering "applicants".
-j
--
Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook
http://www.switchbook.com
j...@switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
Hello,
In order to keep the quality of discussion high and on topic, the Open Web Foundation group is moderated. If can you describe your interest in the Open Web Foundation and what you hope to contribute or learn, I'd be happy to approve your member application.
I have provisionally deleted your application; just sign up again with a description of your interest.
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/subscribe
Thanks!
Chris
I am sympathetic to the reasons for moderation - on the other hand,
especially considering this is a Google Group, it does create an
unnatural barrier to entry for those without Google Accounts, and
especially for those who do not want Google Accounts. Google is kind
enough to provide a help item stating that the list owner can add
members who do not have Google Accounts - unfortunately the list owner
cannot be contacted through the Google Groups contact form if they do
not have a Google Account - bah. I have already had one
friend/contact who I feel would be a useful person to include in these
discussions (and who is certainly interested) but who keeps running
into this "moderated :: get a google account" problem.
--
Stephen Paul Weber, @singpolyma
Please see <http://singpolyma.net> for how I prefer to be contacted.
that seems rather odd indeed..maybe implementing open id
(http://openid.net/) might help here. This reminded me of the
discussion on debian-dev
(http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/130575)
about launchpad logins for DD's
Ian
If it becomes overly burdensome we can address it then. This problem
has appeared about 3 times since I started moderating groups.
Chris
--David
+1. How about a simple CAPTCHA instead of making people write text that
(according to the replies on this thread) isn't used to gate the
membership anyway, and probably intimidates some people?
- johnk
We could fix that by publishing emails for the moderators?
I'll just add in a confirmation that when I first came across the group and
was required to provide a message stating what I think I could offer or help
to get out of the group I had immediately became intimidated as for this is
the first open-discussion group I have been involved with. Quite honestly,
I'm not really sure how much I'll contribute..I'm hoping a lot; but with a
lack of experience and knowledge I can't just say I know for sure that I'll
have anything worthwhile to contribute.
I agree on the need to eliminate excessive e-mails from spammers and the
such, and truly do understand the reason for the requirement to provide some
sort of statement to join.
I'd like to see it made more clear (and if possible less intimidating for
the new comer) as to what the text message is for.
That's my 2 cents; I hope to give and gain a lot from this group.
Thanks for letting (?) me come aboard!
Thanks,
James
+1. How about a simple CAPTCHA instead of making people write text that
(according to the replies on this thread) isn't used to gate the
membership anyway, and probably intimidates some people?
I looked and it's also not possible to publicly list the members of the group, so we'll have to list the moderators separately on the website, perhaps with a contact form that sends us email...
As to whether we really inhibiting people from posting -- such that they forget their point by the time they're approved -- is of course a subjective experience. If you have something that you want to say badly enough, and no one else has said it, I think that the relatively short lag in conception to posting is not a gross imposition, given the aforementioned benefits (preventative and otherwise). You can of course read or subscribe to the group without signing up, and as far as I'm concerned, that's one of the more important aspects of openness for this group -- that there is at least transparency in the conversations that we have, even if there's a door that you have to knock on to be let in to join the conversation.
So, those points withstanding, I'm still not moved towards ending the current practice. Instead I'd prefer to spell out the policy better on the website and try to make the application process more clear.
Chris
Chris Messina wrote:
[...]
> So, those points withstanding, I'm still not moved towards ending the
> current practice. Instead I'd prefer to spell out the policy better on
> the website and try to make the application process more clear.
Personally, I don't mind that much if there is this extra step to
becoming a member, but either it is part of an "application process"
with all the benefits and disadvantages discussed, or it is essentially
a further way to discourage spam.
Are we "open and inclusive" except of spammers? Or "exclusive" of only
those people who actively declare themselves as hostile and negative? Or
something else?
I'm certainly in favour of making the policy clearer - it would be nice
to have a better understanding of whether one is applying to an
organization, or simply signing up to receive emails.
Regards,
- johnk
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> Chris Messina
> Citizen-Participant &
> Open Source Advocate-at-Large
> factoryjoe.com <http://factoryjoe.com> # diso-project.org
> <http://diso-project.org>
> citizenagency.com <http://citizenagency.com> # vidoop.com
> <http://vidoop.com>
--David