From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA15358 for caml-red; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:11:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA06098 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:12:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from morgon.inria.fr (morgon.inria.fr [128.93.8.33]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f17DCN917034; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:12:23 +0100 (MET) Received: (from remy@localhost) by morgon.inria.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA11070; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:12:19 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:12:19 +0100 From: Didier Remy To: Pierre Weis Cc: John Max Skaller , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: Consortium Caml Message-ID: <20010207141218.A11059@morgon.inria.fr> Reply-To: Didier.Remy@inria.fr References: <3A7EDC6B.9A4A2E08@ozemail.com.au> <200102051721.SAA01712@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: <200102051721.SAA01712@pauillac.inria.fr> Organization: INRIA, BP 105, F-78153 Le Chesnay Cedex Phone: (33) 1 3963 5317 -- Sec: (33) 1 3963 5570 -- Fax: (33) 1 3963 5684 Web: http://cristal.inria.fr/~remy Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr > I can give you the list of actual Caml list subscribers who are more > or less serious (serious enough to suffer the mail avalanche from the > list!). Pierre, I don't think this is a good idea at all. One registers to the caml-list either to listen or to participate to the discussions related to Caml. The implicit contract (in such mailing lists) between the subscriber and the administrator is that names and addresses are only used for the purpose of redistribution of messages ---nothing else--- and that this data is kept private. I think we should keep very tightly to this clear implicit policy. If we wish to count the number of Ocaml supporters (for whatever reason) it should be done by some other means. More seriously, if you wish to publish a list of names and/or emails, you should only list those people who explicitly requested to be listed. You should certainly not, by default, list all those who did not said that they would not like to be listed: this would be a change of (implicit) contract without an explicit agreement. -Didier.