email correspondence

[Lee Forgue]

At 04:46 PM 9/19/1996 +0000, Larkin wrote:
>On 19 Sep 96 , BSilveraxe at aol.com wrote about Re: principalities:
>> The decision was handed down, I believe, by the BOD on what is and
>> is not official correspondence.
>
>That would certainly explain it.
>
>The question then would change to why the BOD would say such a thing. 
>Email is a common business practice these days. 

It's your friendly Board Ombudsthing again!

Yes, email is now a common practice -- if you define as common something
accessible to a minority of the populace.  (Estimates of connectivity vary
between 0-ish percent (for less-urban areas) to almost 100 percent (for some
college branches.  Most branches are probably 10-25% connected, with the
higher numbers being in places like Silicon Valley.)

Also, that particular rule is several years old -- I want to say four or
five years, but I may be wrong.  It was much less common for people to have
email and internet access then -- what was (a bit) more available was BBS
access.  The rule was meant to stop people from posting stuff claimed to be
official on BBS's and then stating that it had been adequately distributed
(and other similar abuses).  It was also meant to stop officers from
spouting off on the net without taking time to edit.

The Board is planning to look at this policy, but (being good SCA-folk) we
are as round-tuit impaired as the rest of you.

  --- eilis