RE: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

[[e-mail]]

The problem with the "filter e-mail" approach is simple:  it 
doesn't work for new people.

How will a new person know who to filter?  Will the new person
give up on a WG before he discovers that everyone in the group
is filtering a certain set of (sometimes) disruptive posters?  
Will new peoples' good ideas get filtered out if they share 
them in response to the wrong person?  

It is important that we have constructive and orderly mailing
lists, especially in an environment where we often say that 
the "real work" is done via e-mail.  We wouldn't tolerate 
clearly disruptive behaviour (threats, personal invective, 
repeated off-topic or out-of-scope comments, etc.) in a 
face-to-face meeting, so why would we be willing to tolerate 
this behaviour on our mailing lists?

Freedom of speech does not give people the right to use our
resources (mail servers, disk space, etc.) to send their
messages.  Our mailing lists exist for the purpose of 
conducting constructive work within the IETF, and we
should be able to revoke the posting privileges (and
_yes_, I do mean "privileges") of people who disrupt our
work.

Margaret

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On 
> Behalf Of ext
> Alex Rousskov
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:52 AM
> To: Alex Conta
> Cc: MPowr
> Subject: Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Alex Conta wrote:
> 
> > For instance, nobody forces you to read my message.
> > If my message is disruptive to you, you could have:
> > - ignore it, and further
> > - configure a filter to send my messages on this thread, on this
> >   list, in this WG, etc.... directly to the TRASH folder.
> 
> I had the same thought when reading this thread, but realized that
> installing a filter or otherwise ignoring a message is not a complete
> solution because it violates WG Chair responsibility to gauge
> consensus. If one could ignore or filter only "consensus-unrelated"
> messages, then we would have a perfect solution. Unfortunately,
> ignoring/filtering based on sender or subject line does not guarantee
> that all consensus-related messages will be read.
> 
> However, it looks like filtering is a solution for everybody else (but
> the Chair). Participants do not have to gauge consensus so they can
> ignore whatever they want (and they often do!).
> 
> 
> Let's assume that everybody but the Chair are ignoring what they
> consider disruptive postings. In most cases, this is likely to solve
> the reported problem of disruptive postings blocking technical work.
> The poor Chair will have to listen to the lonely/loony voice(s) of the
> participant(s) being ignored and gauge consensus. In fact, the Chair
> becomes a de facto moderator in this context!
> 
> This approach does not violate free speech. As you know, none of the
> countries guaranteeing free speech was able to guarantee that the
> speech will be heard or have any effect. With the Chair's implied
> obligation to listen, we are actually doing slightly better than most
> countries advertising their free speech laws!
> 
> Can somebody with a real-life disruptive experience comment on this
> solution? Would it help in their specific cases?
> 
> Alex.
> 
> P.S. My understanding is that the Chair is not obligated to
>      respond, only listen (to gauge consensus).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpowr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
> 

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr