Print

Print


My two cents.  I do not think a vendor should use the list to generally
promote his/her company or a product.  I do think it is OK for a vendor
to contact a user privately to offer suggestions, especially since the
vendor may have more thorough knowledge of a specific solution and have
a better finger on the pulse of what different customers have been doing
to address specific problems.  I guess that is still vague, but I always
thought Bryan St. John Schofield was an appropriate and responsible user
of this list and could serve as the model for vendor participation.



Tommy Walz
Technology Coordinator
Barre Supervisory Union

>>> Eric Hall <[log in to unmask]> 1/11/2008 1:41 PM >>>
My recollection was that many agreed that off-list vendor contacts were
more
appropriate. I would agree that vendor use of the list is a grey area.
I
will also note, however, that previous to that discussion this vendor
had
been posting to the list ³at large², so his approach has changed since
then.

Eric



on 1/11/08 1:24 PM, Jeff Wallis wrote:

> ***********************
> Your mail has been scanned by InterScan VirusWall.
> ***********-***********
> 
> 
> Sorry to bring this topic up again, but after posting about
antivirus, I
> received an email from
> 
>> > Mike Renzulli
>> > Account Executive
>> > UNICOM
> 
> This feels like a violation of the list rules and inappropriate. 
Next time I
> will not be as open to posting on the list for fear of future spam
from
> vendors.  Have we determined the list rules?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> This e-mail may contain information protected under the Family
Educational
> Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).  If this e-mail contains student
information
> and you are not entitled to access such information under FERPA,
please notify
> the sender.  Federal regulations require that you destroy this e-mail
without
> reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone.
> 
>>>> >>> On 12/4/2007 at 8:03 PM, Vincent Rossano <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>> > This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want
to
>> > consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how
to
>> > properly handle MIME multipart messages.
>> > 
>> > --=__Part7B5D64F9.0__=
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> > 
>> > Ray,
>> > =20
>> > Phil Hyjek and Steve Cavrak are the titular "owners" of this list.
 Phil I
=
>> > haven't heard from in years.  Steve Cavrak is a regular
contributor.  But =
>> > I don't think there were any real "rules and regs" about
appropriate =
>> > material to be posted.  Many of us old-time NetWare people used to
=
>> > subscribe to the listserv at CVU (and later So. Burlington) which,
=
>> > originally, was for school techies using NetWare.  When VISMT got
fired =
>> > up, one of the things they did was offer to set up lists that were
a bit =
>> > more general for folks all around the state - not just the
northwest =
>> > region.  I think the only criteria was that the discussion would
be about =
>> > issues of concern to school IT people.  It wasn't any more
specific than =
>> > that.   Am I right, Steve Cavrak (and others)? =20
>> > =20
>> > I don't think people envisioned this as a forum that would include
=
>> > vendors, but, on the other hand, there were no specific rules
about that =
>> > put in place.  I don't think anyone even thought about it.  It
would seem =
>> > to me that if a clear majority of the list subscribers (I believe
there =
>> > are about 235 now) felt vendors shouldn't post to the list,
vendors would =
>> > honor that.  But good arguments have been made on both sides of
the issue.
=
>> >  If vendors were banned from posting OR listening, people might
feel freer
=
>> > to discuss issues they've had with these folks.    For instance,
if I =
>> > wanted to say that Mike Lambert was a friggin' idiot, I wouldn't
do it =
>> > because he subscribes to the list. :-)  =20
>> > =20
>> > On the other hand, we do sometimes get useful information from
these =
>> > folks.  I think the way Bryan Scofield interacts with the list is
a good =
>> > compromise:  if he sees something where he thinks he might have
some help =
>> > to offer (or, yes, make a sale), he contacts the person who posted
=
>> > directly.  Then, if that person wants to bring Bryan's response to
share =
>> > with others on the list he/she can do so.
>> > =20
>> > However, in the case of Mike Lambert, for instance (and I'm not
joking =
>> > now), he often has specific advice to offer that might help solve
a =
>> > problem that is being discussed - advice that doesn't require us
to pay =
>> > him any money.  That seems pretty useful.   So, I don't know; it
gets =
>> > fuzzy at times.  (I get fuzzy all the time.)
>> > =20
>> > I do, though, think we probably all agree that we don't want
outright =
>> > solicitations on this listserv, right?
>> > =20
>> > -Vince
>> > 
>>>>> >>>> Raymond Ballou <[log in to unmask]> 12/4/2007 7:22
PM >>>
>> > 
>> > found this digging deep into the listserv commands.
>> > 
>> > R.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > * Owner=3D [log in to unmask] (Philip Hyjek)
>> > * Owner=3D [log in to unmask] (Steve Cavrak)
>> > * Errors-To=3D [log in to unmask] (Philip Hyjek)
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --=__Part7B5D64F9.0__=
>> > Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
>> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> > Content-Description: HTML
>> > 
>> > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>found the owners</TITLE>
>> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html;
>> charset=3Diso-8859-15=
>> > ">
>> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16544" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
>> > <BODY style=3D"MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
>> > <DIV>Ray,</DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>Phil Hyjek and Steve Cavrak are the titular "owners" of this
=
>> > list.&nbsp; Phil I haven't heard from in years.&nbsp; Steve Cavrak
is a =
>> > regular contributor.&nbsp; But I don't think there were any real
"rules =
>> > and regs" about appropriate material to be posted.&nbsp;&nbsp;Many
of us =
>> > old-time NetWare people used to subscribe to the listserv at CVU
(and =
>> > later So. Burlington) which, originally, was for school techies
using =
>> > NetWare.&nbsp; When VISMT got fired up, one of the things they did
was =
>> > offer to set up lists that were a bit more general for folks all
around =
>> > the state - not just the northwest region.&nbsp; I think the only
criteria
=
>> > was that the discussion would be about issues of concern to school
IT =
>> > people.&nbsp; It wasn't any&nbsp;more specific than
that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Am I
=
>> > right, Steve Cavrak (and others)?&nbsp; </DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>I don't think people envisioned this as a forum that would
include =
>> > vendors, but, on the other hand, there were no specific rules
about that =
>> > put in place.&nbsp; I don't think anyone even thought about
it.&nbsp; It =
>> > would seem to me that if a clear majority of the list subscribers
(I =
>> > believe there are about&nbsp;235 now) felt vendors shouldn't post
to the =
>> > list, vendors would honor that.&nbsp; But good arguments have been
made on
=
>> > both sides of the issue.&nbsp; If vendors were banned from posting
OR =
>> > listening, people might feel freer to discuss issues they've had
with =
>> > these folks.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; For instance, if I wanted to say
that Mike =
>> > Lambert was a friggin' idiot, I wouldn't do it because he
subscribes to =
>> > the list. :-)&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>On the other hand, we do sometimes get useful information
from these =
>> > folks.&nbsp; I think&nbsp;the way Bryan Scofield interacts with
>> the&nbsp;li=
>> > st is a good compromise:&nbsp; if he sees something where he
>> thinks&nbsp;he=
>> >  might&nbsp;have some help to offer (or, yes, make a sale), he
contacts =
>> > the person who posted directly.&nbsp; Then, if that person wants
to bring =
>> > Bryan's response to share with others on the list he/she can do
so.</DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>However, in the case of&nbsp;Mike Lambert, for instance (and
I'm not =
>> > joking now), he often has specific advice to offer that might help
solve a
=
>> > problem that is being discussed - advice that doesn't require us
to pay =
>> > him any money.&nbsp; That seems pretty useful.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, I
don't =
>> > know; it gets fuzzy at times.&nbsp; (I get fuzzy all the
time.)</DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>I do, though, think we probably all agree that we don't want
outright
=
>> > solicitations on this listserv, right?</DIV>
>> > <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
>> > <DIV>-Vince<BR><BR>&gt;&gt;&gt; Raymond Ballou
>> &lt;[log in to unmask] 
>> > .US&gt; 12/4/2007 7:22 PM &gt;&gt;&gt;<BR></DIV><!-- Converted
from =
>> > text/plain format -->
>> > <P><FONT size=3D2>found this digging deep into the listserv
>> commands.<BR><B=
>> > R>R.<BR><BR><BR>* Owner=3D [log in to unmask] (Philip
Hyjek)<BR>* =
>> > Owner=3D [log in to unmask] (Steve Cavrak)<BR>* Errors-To=3D
>> phyjek@vermon=
>> > tinstitutes.org (Philip
Hyjek)<BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BODY></HTML>
>> > 
>> > --=__Part7B5D64F9.0__=--
> 
>