On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:03 am, Sarah k Alawami wrote:
One example was: "using the BCC field for this list is off limits." Um? So I agree that guidelines should be possible to the public, if the owner chooses so.
Well, if it was a private group it makes sense that BCC: would be forbidden (as it could be used as a way to circulate material to individuals who were not members of the private group) and CC: would be unnecessary if one is communicating inside the group, which is pretty much the expectation whether it's private or public. If you were sending a private message you'd simply e-mail a group member off list or use a mechanism like Groups.io
offers to do same.
I don't think it should have to do with owner choice. If an owner does not want public guidelines then they can choose not to employ them or use a single line much like has been used with regard to references on resumes forever: Guidelines furnished upon request.
That phrase should be the bare minimum if one publishes anything at all as Guidelines. That still leaves a group as a black box, by and large, but if the owner and/or moderator(s) reliably follow through with furnishing the actual guidelines privately before actual membership is granted that gives the prospective member the information they need to make an informed decision. If no information regarding a group's guidelines is forthcoming when requested then you really have to question why.
To put a slight twist on Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that won't tell me what it's about."
-- Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063 (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature)
I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up.
~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's
Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe