RE: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:

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

If our task were to eliminate 100% of what the Chair considers
"disruptive" postings to 100% of participants, then you would be
right. Since our task, I think, is to prevent serious disruptions, the
problem you are implying is not a big deal (it does not create serious
disruptions).

> How will a new person know who to filter?

Newbies should read the archives for the last month or so (at least).
They can be advised by old timers as well.

> 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?

Possibly. Such a person is probably not very interested in a working
group to start with (did not read the archives and got discouraged by
10 e-mails from the same participant).

> Will new peoples' good ideas get filtered out if they share them in
> response to the wrong person?

The Chair will not filter out any ideas and can advise accordingly.
The above can only happen if somebody filters based on subject alone,
(which is their right to do and they get the effect they wanted).

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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?

Hm... We wouldn't? I wonder how you would deal with such behavior in a
face-to-face meeting. Call the police?

Since we cannot define what disruptive is, we should be very careful
with making any formal rules with this undefined term. Immediate
suspension does not sound like a "very careful" approach to me.

Furthermore, the filtering suggestion does not tolerate disruptive
behaviour. It makes it invisible to all but the Chair.

> 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.

Yes, but the argument seems to be revolving around _how_ such
"privileges" can be revoked, not whether they can be revoked.

Alex.

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr