Re: Please welcome the facilitators at [e-mail]

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 05:53 10-11-2016, John C Klensin wrote:
>That is consistent with the point I was trying to make.  Part of
>what I understood you to say was that the role, as currently
>defined, was taking up too much time as compared to value and
>your and Melinda to suggest that there weren't a lot of cases in
>which it was likely to be particularly effective.  I think there

As this is an experiment I provided some data so that Jari can draw a 
conclusion.  The time taken was more about providing information for 
the next person volunteering for the task, or a similar task.

>is still potential value in the general concept and in
>mechanisms that were lighter-weight and more about focusing
>discussions, reducing repetition, and educating participants
>than the Sergeant at Arms procedures.   If so, or we want to
>carry out _that_ experiment, the right next step is to reduce
>the workload to be more proportionate to both need and acutal
>value.

The experiment was light-weight, i.e avoid getting to Sergeant at 
Arms procedures.  Thanks for commenting about the potential value in 
the general concept.

>That said, the one thing I wish you had done but didn't (and may
>not have had the mandate to do) was to post those summaries with
>enough confidence, and presumption of community backing, to be
>able to say "these subthreads have been noted, continuing to
>post on them without adding anything new will be considered
>disruptive and turned over to the Sergeant at Arms".

I would be going beyond the experiment if I attempted to restrict a 
subscriber from posting more messages which did not contain new 
information.  It would also be at odds with the experiment being light-weight.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy