Mr Montgomery:
 
As a Net denizen of some years' standing, and even more as a listowner
(not of museum-l), I am somewhat taken aback by the tactics the Smithsonian
is taking to compile its proposed directory.
 
First: it should NOT be necessary for people to go to the lengths of
concealing themselves on the lists to which they subscribe lest someone
cull the listmember addresses for publication in a directory, as the
Smithsonian is intent upon doing.
 
Being an unconcealed listmember on any list implies nothing save that one
does not object to other listmembers' being able to gather your name and
address should they wish to pursue private communication, presumably of a
professional nature or related to a list thread in which one has
participated.
 
Second: your assumption that silence equals assent is fallacious.  It
moreover seems based on the equally fallacious assumption that people read
all the e-mail sent out on the lists to which they subscribe, on the day on
which the postings are sent out.
 
There are people on nomail; there are people on digest; there are people
who have better things to do than to read every single message that comes
into their e-mail postbox, who scan their subject headings and delete what
does not interest them.
 
Indeed, Mr Montgomery, until quite recently I was receiving the digest
version of museum-l, where I was several weeks behind on my reading.  It is
now by sheerest chance that I did not delete your message from the new-mail
folder on the basis of the subject line, that I did not cease reading it
after the first paragraph.  I am one of those who would not have known what
you proposed to do, and would hence have been included unwillingly and
unknowingly in the Smithsonian's directory.
 
For any number of reasons, in short, you will be including listmembers who
did not set conceal because they didn't know they needed to protect
themselves, and members who did not protest because they didn't realize
there was something *to* protest.
 
Third: another fallacious assumption -- that all listmembers are museum
professionals.  I am a librarian with a strong interest in musea; once upon
a time, I had entertained the possibility of a career in museum work.  That
is why *I* am on this list.  I have no doubt whatever that there are others
here in a similar position.  The accuracy of this directory, by
automatically including all listmembers from museum-l, would for that
reason alone be suspect -- not the sort of thing your institution would
want, I am certain.
 
I am rather surprised that the Smithsonian would have its staff compile a
directory by such means.
 
Museum-L was, I thought, meant as a discussion list for people interested
in musea, professionally or not.  It never once occurred to me that the
Smithsonian would use it as a hunting ground for its proposed directory in
this fashion.  I would not be at all surprised if listmembers finding
themselves in your directory without their knowledge and consent will lodge
a formal protest with your managing editor or with the head of the
department in charge of your project.
 
Mario Rups, henceforth concealed
[log in to unmask]