[OpenID] Wiki notes (Policy development)

[SitG Admin]

>This is a first draft and feedback is of course welcomed. I felt 
>that rather than spinning our wheels on this list, we should have 
>something concrete up to discuss.

I was going to write a long list of feedback, but after realizing 
that some of it was just typo-level (grammar, mostly), I decided to 
just go ahead and make those changes directly. The changelog link is 
here:
http://wiki.openid.net/sdiff.php?first=Mailing%2BList%2BPolicies&second=Mailing%2BList%2BPolicies.2009-11-30-01-57-17

>Please read it over and provide *specific* feedback.

I do want to note, since I don't see a way to readily incorporate 
anything about this into the document (I'm trying to keep these 
tweaks very minor), that the bounce report promise could be abused: I 
report someone, they get unsubscribed, immediately? I would hope that 
the person doing this either checks first, or uses the list's 
administrative interface to set that person's preferences to "do not 
send me messages, I will read them online in the archives" and then 
sends that person one messages about it.

Though, if a message is going to be sent anyway . . . just send one 
saying "if this bounces immediately, you will be unsubscribed; if it 
doesn't bounce right away, you need to go change your preferences in 
the list's Mailman interface, and this is your notification that it 
happened". If they receive the message, they obviously weren't 
bouncing, so it wouldn't be inaccurate.

I did make one change that I consider major: the section on 
"unsubscribed with extreme prejudice. Not to mention haste." (well, 
we just DID mention it . . . crap?). Kind of like saying "(Haste goes 
without saying.)" - then why'd we say it? - it's a cultural saying 
which makes perfect sense if you know what it means, but may be taken 
literally by foreigners and engineers. I condensed the haste sentence 
into "swift" and the part about prejudice (which is misleadingly 
inaccurate: prejudice is *not* the operative principle here) I 
switched to "justice". If anyone has an idea for better words here 
than "justice" (it's fine for what it *should be*, but something less 
subjective would be nice.)

The sentence fragment "explain your feelings calmly, reasonably, and 
above all clearly without attacking them" I modified by inserting a 
comma after "clearly". My intent was to change "without attacking 
them" to its own clause, so the method is 1) calm 2) reason 3) 
clarity 4) nonaggression. If the intent here *is* to have 3 clauses, 
with the third being "clearly not attacking them", change it back :)

-Shade