Ian C. Blenke wrote:
> steve szmidt wrote:
>> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 23:57, Ian C. Blenke wrote:
>>
>>> Steve forwarded this to me privately, I'm going to go ahead and copy the
>>> SLUG list on this to benefit others.
>>>
>> I must say I'm disappointed in your ethics of forwarding a personal email to a
>> list without asking! Not OK Ian!
>>
>
> Was there something condemning here? Some super secret perhaps? Exposing
> your private 192.168.x.x network topology?
>
> Next time, should I:
> 1. Spend a half hour of my time responding to a fairly generically
> applicable question privately to benefit only you.
> 2. Simply reply saying "this question belongs on the SLUG list, as
> others would learn from the response, post it there and I'll respond"
> and leave it at that?
>
> In hind sight, I should have probably done the latter. It might have
> pissed you off to be dismissed like that, but I wouldn't need to post a
> public message like this as a followup to hurt feelings.
>
> I made a judgement call. The email was fairly benign. It seemed safe
> enough to send to the list.
>
> The only damage I can think of here is somehow causing you loss of face
> by exposing a private question to a public forum, however innocent that
> question is. For that, I apologize.
>
> It's been another long day in a series of long days. It is 12:50am. I
> have work in the morning. I am tired. Goodnight.
>
> - Ian C. Blenke <ian@blenke.com> http://ian.blenke.com/
>
FWIW (and this is *not* any sort of official pronouncement):
1. I see Steve's viewpoint. I wouldn't normally forward something to a
list without requesting the permission of the original poster. I'd be
somewhat concerned if someone reposted a private email of mine to a
public list, regardless of content.
2. I see Ian's viewpoint. This *is* a like a FAQ, which is probably part
of why Ian referred Steve to the SLUG FAQ. And it contained only
innocuous details. Ian's smart enough not to have posted it if it
contained critical security data. Little or no true harm in making it
public for its instructive value. Worst case (as I've done in the past)
it could be reposted without citing the original poster, and none but
Ian and Steve would be the wiser.
3. Given the innocuous content, and the fact that Ian was gracious
enough to help on his own time, I would not have publicly rebuked him. A
private polite request to refrain from posting private emails would have
been more appropriate, I think. And an expression of gratitude for Ian's
help.
4. Given the nature of the question, and its potential to be generally
instructive, I don't think I would have asked Ian personally about it. I
probably would have put it out there for the whole list. More eyes would
get to look at it, and more people would benefit from its solution.
5. I'm reluctant to ask people who get paid to solve this kind of
problem to help me for free privately. Conversely, I have no problem
burdening list members with problems to solve. They volunteered to be
here, and are under no social pressure to help, unlike if I asked them
privately. I'm *not* knocking Steve's choice here; I'm just expressing
my approach to the offlist/onlist quesion. Steve and others are free to
do as they like.
(I'm more than willing to help people offlist *if I can*, but I'm
reluctant to ask for this kind of free private help unless I know the
person well. Fortunately, I don't get a lot of these private questions,
or I'd probably take a harder line. Maybe people have figured out I
don't know anything! ;-)
Again, I'm not condemning anyone's choices here. Just providing food for
thought. (Of course, you'd starve on a diet of this stuff ;-).
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:08:20 EDT