LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  July 2019

CODE4LIB July 2019

Subject:

Re: From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"

From:

Andrew L Hickner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:17:26 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

I would like to humbly suggest that the sub-group of subscribers who have demonstrated an interest in revising the COC continue this conversation on a separate list, perhaps schedule some virtual meetings to talk things through and divide up the work, and then come back to the general list with a request for comments once an initial draft is ready. Reply-all is not an ideal process for writing policies. 



Andy Hickner, MSI 
Health Sciences Librarian
Seton Hall University | Interprofessional Health Sciences Campus
[log in to unmask] | 1-973-542-6973
http://library.shu.edu/ihs 

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of David Mayo
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 9:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note [admiistratativia]"

I think it'd be a good idea to work out an explicit process for changes to the CoC, maybe something like (extremely naive strawman version incoming):

- changes go in proposal-N branch
- discussion happens for minimum N period
- decide what constitutes substantial change, minimum voting quorum and specified forum?

These are, again, examples of the type of decision we should maybe make and apply, not suggestions for the actual structure of said process.

- Dave Mayo
(he/him/his)

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:47 AM Kate Deibel < [log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It does add to the confusion. Furthermore, since we link to the main 
> branch of that repo as our Code of Conduct, it is concerning that it 
> was edited significantly without consultation of the larger community.
>
> Katherine Deibel | PhD
> Inclusion & Accessibility Librarian
> Syracuse University Libraries
> T 315.443.7178
> [log in to unmask]
> 222 Waverly Ave., Syracuse, NY 13244
> Syracuse University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Jenn C
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt "Note 
> [admiistratativia]"
>
> No apology needed, honestly trying to get a grip on the process!
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:02 AM Esmé Cowles <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Jenn-
> >
> > Sorry — I merged the other PR prematurely.  I didn't mean to 
> > short-circuit discussion here, and I would be happy to revert that 
> > change if anyone would like me to do that.
> >
> > Since the other PR is open for comments ( 
> > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi
> > thub.com%2Fcode4lib%2Fcode-of-conduct%2Fpull%2F80&amp;data=01%7C01%7Candrew.hickner%40SHU.EDU%7Cfb457b87b9814cdfc85808d709ee0276%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&amp;sdata=sP3k2TN04YVJWMkR9jZJCvHDvsUTVJ%2Fjl6lJjndn%2B3o%3D&amp;reserved=0), I think it's probably better to just resolve the discussion there.
> >
> > -Esmé
> >
> > > On Jul 16, 2019, at 7:43 AM, Jenn C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > This PR to the CoC was merged more than a week ago:
> > >
> > >
> > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgi
> > thub.com%2Fcode4lib%2Fcode-of-conduct%2Fcommit%2Fb6cc99c7b7e16cdf278
> > &amp;data=01%7C01%7Candrew.hickner%40SHU.EDU%7Cfb457b87b9814cdfc8580
> > 8d709ee0276%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&amp;sdata=hdWMprU
> > bDl2ugbbCHUDMYCt%2FlFwftKOpI62vF7SDueo%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > b5c4565d661ba53c011ea
> > >
> > >
> > > I think (????????? see GH comments previously) that is different 
> > > from the PR that was announced for comments. This PR introduced 
> > > (again I think??) this language which talks about how anonymity 
> > > should be handled. I don't think this implies any fundamental 
> > > change to the functioning of the
> > list. I
> > > am a little confused why this PR was merged without discussion but 
> > > the other PR announced and what process is actually happening.
> > >
> > > jenn
> > >
> > > ### Anonymity
> > >
> > > In general the community prefers to know who is writing. 
> > > Exceptions may arise when the you feel at risk; in that case, the 
> > > you may contact one or more [Community Support
> > > Volunteers](css_volunteers.md) for help
> > forwarding
> > > your message. At the least, your message should include a *reason* 
> > > for
> > why
> > > you are choosing to be anonymous. For example:
> > >
> > > * "I'm looking for advice on how to present myself for another 
> > > job, but
> > my
> > > boss doesn't know I'm looking"
> > > * "I'd like some advice in dealing with a programming conflict, 
> > > and other members of the team are on this list"
> > >
> > > ### Surveys
> > >
> > > If you wish to ask people on the listserv to participate in a 
> > > survey, you should minimally identify:
> > >
> > > * yourself
> > > * purpose of the survey
> > > * the reason you're asking **in this listserv**
> > > * what kinds of information you're collecting
> > > * (if collecting identifying information such as email address, 
> > > name),
> > what
> > > you plan to do with it, and how you'll keep it secure.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:26 AM EDWIN VINCENT SPERR 
> > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I personally agree that requiring verified identities for posters 
> > >> is potentially *really* disruptive to the list. It seems a 
> > >> disproportionate response to what is still mostly a theoretical risk.
> > >>
> > >> I also trust that any changes to the fundamental functioning of 
> > >> this
> > list
> > >> would only be undertaken after a period of broad discussion 
> > >> followed by
> > a
> > >> (very)  formal vote. This list is common property and is still a 
> > >> primary communication channel for this community. Decisions 
> > >> regarding changes to it's function (or the rules that govern its
> > >> participants) should be made democratically.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Edwin V. Sperr, MLIS
> > >> AU/UGA Medical Partnership
> > >> Office of Graduate Medical Education Clinical Information 
> > >> Librarian
> > >>
> > >> St. Mary’s Hospital
> > >> 1230 Baxter Street
> > >> Athens, GA 30606
> > >>
> > >> p: 706-389-3864
> > >> e: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | [log in to unmask]<mailto:
> > >> [log in to unmask]>
> > >> w:
> > >> medicalpartnership.usg.edu<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.out
> > >> look.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicalpartnership.usg.edu%2F&amp;
> > >> data=01%7C01%7Candrew.hickner%40SHU.EDU%7Cfb457b87b9814cdfc85808d
> > >> 709ee0276%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&amp;sdata=6%2F13
> > >> %2FDgF5iZ0QZsGUWufsaajU8TXryw33XaHmRxO0f4%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of 
> > >> Natasha Allen <[log in to unmask]>
> > >> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 4:29 PM
> > >> To: [log in to unmask]
> > >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] From the Community Support Squad wrt 
> > >> "Note [admiistratativia]"
> > >>
> > >> [External Sender]
> > >>
> > >> Hi Tom,
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for responding with your clarifications. Much appreciated.
> > >>
> > >> Natasha
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> Natasha Allen (she/her)
> > >> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library San José 
> > >> State University
> > >> 1 Washington Square
> > >> San José , CA 95192
> > >> [log in to unmask]
> > >> 408-808-2655
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 1:08 PM Tom Johnson < 
> > >> [log in to unmask]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point 
> > >>>> out that
> > >> if
> > >>> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially 
> > >>> damaging information, I have a right to know who they are and 
> > >>> their motivations
> > >> for
> > >>> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who 
> > >>> would use sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only 
> > >>> speak for myself
> > when
> > >> i
> > >>> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation.
> > >>>
> > >>> my apologies. my implication was not at all meant along these lines.
> > >>>
> > >>> on the contrary, i think the transparency issues in this case 
> > >>> are
> > utterly
> > >>> clear. the work undertaken by yourself and others to address 
> > >>> them has
> > my
> > >>> complete support.
> > >>>
> > >>> what i object to is the idea, as exemplified in Eric's posts of 
> > >>> June
> > 28,
> > >>> that unsigned posts to this board constitute suspicious activity 
> > >>> and
> > that
> > >>> the normal administrative response is to de-anonymize in order 
> > >>> to "get
> > >> rid
> > >>> of them". i'm not aware of that being a practice here. if it has 
> > >>> been,
> > >> i'm
> > >>> extremely uncomfortable with it. in either case, Eric's 
> > >>> reference to
> > this
> > >>> enforcement practice was sudden, apparently unconnected to any
> > documented
> > >>> policy or process, and coupled with claims that the entire 
> > >>> subject
> > matter
> > >>> of sexual harassment is unwelcome on this board. this 
> > >>> combination seems chilling to me; it certainly makes /me/ 
> > >>> reluctant to continue my
> > limited
> > >>> participation here. this is what i meant by "intimidation".
> > >>>
> > >>> again, apologies for the confusion. i was initially reluctant to 
> > >>> be so direct about attributing issues to specific posts or people.
> > >>> it's clear
> > >> to
> > >>> me now that if i'm going to chime in, that directness is called for.
> > >>>
> > >>> - tom
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:50 AM Natasha Allen 
> > >>> <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants 
> > >>>>> to
> > >>> identify
> > >>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case (with
> > >>> legitimate
> > >>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the 
> > >>>> information
> > >> being
> > >>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to 
> > >>>> intimidate
> > >> than
> > >>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify that 
> > >>>> intimidation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As both a woman and librarian, i think i'm qualified to point 
> > >>>> out that
> > >> if
> > >>>> someone is asking for me to give them private, potentially 
> > >>>> damaging information, I have a right to know who they are and 
> > >>>> their motivations
> > >>> for
> > >>>> asking, because lord knows there are plenty of bad actors who 
> > >>>> would
> > use
> > >>>> sensitive information for ill purposes. I can only speak for 
> > >>>> myself
> > >> when
> > >>> i
> > >>>> say this but it's a matter of safety, not intimidation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> Natasha Allen (she/her)
> > >>>> System and Fulfillment Coordinator, University Library San José 
> > >>>> State University
> > >>>> 1 Washington Square
> > >>>> San José , CA 95192
> > >>>> [log in to unmask]
> > >>>> 408-808-2655
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:23 AM Tom Johnson < 
> > >>>> [log in to unmask]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely we 
> > >>>>> can understand that people use and attach their ideas to many 
> > >>>>> names in
> > >> both
> > >>>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the 
> > >>>>> argument
> > >> that
> > >>>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility 
> > >>>>> of
> > >> posts
> > >>>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the 
> > >>>>> restriction,
> > >> any
> > >>>> rule
> > >>>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people 
> > >>>>> and
> > >>> topics.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a 
> > >>>>> bit,
> > >>> excluding
> > >>>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. 
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>> discussion
> > >>>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to 
> > >>>>> be
> > >>> excluded:
> > >>>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing 
> > >>>>> example,
> > >> but
> > >>>> i'd
> > >>>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly
> > >> reasonable
> > >>>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional
> community.
> > >>>> unless
> > >>>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of 
> > >>>>> baddy
> > >>> bosses,
> > >>>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes 
> > >>>>> me worry
> > >>>> very
> > >>>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for discussants 
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>> identify
> > >>>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case 
> > >>>>> (with
> > >>>> legitimate
> > >>>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the 
> > >>>>> information
> > >>> being
> > >>>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to 
> > >>>>> intimidate
> > >>> than
> > >>>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify 
> > >>>>> that intimidation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> best,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tom
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 8:14 AM Tom Johnson 
> > >>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> i'll put in another word strongly against a name/signature policy.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> as professionals who work regularly with authorship, surely 
> > >>>>>> we can understand that people use and attach their ideas to 
> > >>>>>> many names in
> > >>> both
> > >>>>>> private and public life for a wide range of reasons. the 
> > >>>>>> argument
> > >>> that
> > >>>>>> restricting naming here would improve the quality or civility 
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>> posts
> > >>>>>> appears unsupported. absent a compelling need for the 
> > >>>>>> restriction,
> > >>> any
> > >>>>> rule
> > >>>>>> would seem only to provide tools for excluding certain people 
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>> topics.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> to take it a step further, and reading between the lines a 
> > >>>>>> bit,
> > >>>> excluding
> > >>>>>> people and topics seems to be the precise goal of the rule. 
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>> discussion
> > >>>>>> has already drifted into adjudicating hypothetical topics to 
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>> excluded:
> > >>>>>> "my boss is a baddy, and here's why..." is a trivializing 
> > >>>>>> example,
> > >>> but
> > >>>>> i'd
> > >>>>>> put it to you that in many circumstances this is a perfectly
> > >>> reasonable
> > >>>>>> issue to raise publicly and anonymously to a professional
> > >> community.
> > >>>>> unless
> > >>>>>> our goal is to tip the balance of power further in favor of 
> > >>>>>> baddy
> > >>>> bosses,
> > >>>>>> that is. that this is coming up in the current context makes 
> > >>>>>> me
> > >> worry
> > >>>>> very
> > >>>>>> much about which topics we'd attempt to filter in practice.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> finally, i think it's regrettable that demands for 
> > >>>>>> discussants to
> > >>>>> identify
> > >>>>>> themselves came up in the prior thread. even in this case 
> > >>>>>> (with
> > >>>>> legitimate
> > >>>>>> concerns at hand about methodolgy and the nature of the 
> > >>>>>> information
> > >>>> being
> > >>>>>> solicited) it seemed to me that these demands did more to
> > >> intimidate
> > >>>> than
> > >>>>>> anything else. i fear adopting this as policy would codify 
> > >>>>>> that intimidation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> best,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> tom
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 6:23 AM Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I read the LSOFT page describing the DMARC aliases, and it 
> > >>>>>>> seems
> > >>> like
> > >>>>>>> there is a good technical reason for doing so.  To disallow 
> > >>>>>>> the LISTSERV-supplied DMARC aliases would prevent some 
> > >>>>>>> participant's
> > >>> mail
> > >>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> being delivered (or would have it downgraded to "junk" 
> > >>>>>>> status by
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>> receiving mail agent).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regarding the use of aliases in general, there are good 
> > >>>>>>> reasons to
> > >>> use
> > >>>>>>> them (as have been described in other messages in this thread).
> > >> The
> > >>>>> use of
> > >>>>>>> an alias is a signal of a sort, and readers can take that 
> > >>>>>>> signal
> > >>> into
> > >>>>>>> account as they read and consider the content of the message.
> > >>>>>>> I
> > >>>>> wouldn't
> > >>>>>>> want to see aliases banned from the list.  I think it is 
> > >>>>>>> also a
> > >>> health
> > >>>>>>> practice to encourage the use of email signatures whenever
> > >> possible
> > >>> so
> > >>>>>>> community members get to know each other.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Peter
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> Peter Murray
> > >>>>>>> Open Source Community Advocate Index Data, LLC On Jul 12, 
> > >>>>>>> 2019, 11:07 AM -0400, Eric Lease Morgan <
> > >> [log in to unmask]
> > >>>> ,
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> With the advent of some sort of new SMTP enhancement called
> > >> DMARC,
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>> is possible to post to LISTSERV applications (like ours) and 
> > >>>>>>> have
> > >>> your
> > >>>>>>> email address obfuscated, like above. This is apparently a
> > >> feature.
> > >>>> [0]
> > >>>>>>> Yes, direct replies to an address like 
> > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] do make it 
> > >>>>>>> back to
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>> original sender, but without some sort of signature can be 
> > >>>>>>> very
> > >>>>> difficult
> > >>>>>>> to know to whom one is replying.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think any poster to the mailing ought to be easily
> > >> identifiable.
> > >>>> One
> > >>>>>>> ought to be able to easily know the name of the poster, 
> > >>>>>>> their
> > >>>>> affiliation,
> > >>>>>>> and their email address. Such makes things: 1) more 
> > >>>>>>> transparent,
> > >> and
> > >>>> 2)
> > >>>>>>> lends credibility to the post. Even if I don't sign this 
> > >>>>>>> message
> > >> you
> > >>>> can
> > >>>>>>> see that my name is Eric Morgan, I work for Notre Dame, and 
> > >>>>>>> my
> > >>> address
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask] The posting above works because there is/was 
> > >>>>>>> a
> > >> full
> > >>>>>>> signature. Postings from [log in to unmask] are
> > >> difficult
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>> swallow but I can live with them. But postings from EM < 
> > >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> with no 
> > >>>>>>> signature
> > >> I
> > >>>>> think
> > >>>>>>> are not respectful. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows 
> > >>>>>>> you
> > >>> are a
> > >>>>>>> dog." [1]
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> [0] dmarc - 
> > >>>>>>>> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3
> > >>>>>>>> A%2F%2Fwww.lsoft.com%2Fnews%2Fdmarc-issue1-2018.asp&amp;dat
> > >>>>>>>> a=01%7C01%7Candrew.hickner%40SHU.EDU%7Cfb457b87b9814cdfc858
> > >>>>>>>> 08d709ee0276%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&amp;sda
> > >>>>>>>> ta=u3f%2Bdm0aVXYulgWvJfxjlsFTzbsnt6N3Bxc2FUGNSbs%3D&amp;res
> > >>>>>>>> erved=0
> > >>>>>>>> [1] dog -
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen
> > .wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOn_the_Internet%2C_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_d
> > og&amp;data=01%7C01%7Candrew.hickner%40SHU.EDU%7Cfb457b87b9814cdfc85
> > 808d709ee0276%7C51f07c2253b744dfb97ca13261d71075%7C1&amp;sdata=%2Bzs
> > fXBYxWmq6jJ5gwvyV0fmvgPFGRSCI2ReqhFxHqZs%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>
** WARNING: This email originated from outside of Seton Hall University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. **

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1907&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&P=128243
lists.clir.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-25
87633
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PWXBF3CYVUOATNBF4P7LOMKPWJXUJPEC
<urn:uuid:f23e1dcf-9665-4682-85d6-c4176933633a>
2021-06-25T04:28:18Z
66.175.211.245
text/html
sha1:JYT7ESGSGMQPVH62TFXQZPCRTKDPTTC7
<urn:uuid:76c4e39f-7b54-48bf-a2cf-fd1fd52bc361>
https://lists.clir.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1907&L=CODE4LIB&D=0&P=128243
response
<urn:uuid:54d53c70-38be-4bec-9082-f0fadffcbd45>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-25
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-245.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/