Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

AlexR,

I guess I see this as requiring a lot of mechanism  and difficulty just to
preserve the "right" of someone to post, and post disruptive email at that.
To my mind, there is a limit to which other people should be inconvenienced
by someone who is attempting to prevent useful work from getting done.

Also, there's Melinda's point.

My feeling is that as long as there is recourse for people who feel they are
unfairly treated, people's rights to speak freely are preserved.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
To: "James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
Cc: "MPowr" <mpowr@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James Kempf wrote:
>
> > So I guess I don't see any difference between the chair sending out
> > email saying "filter this guy's email" and the chair removing the
> > person from the list, except from a theoretical standpoint.
>
> The e-mail will advise about available options (such as "filter this
> guy's email"). It does not have to recommend any specific action.
>
> > The net effect is the same: nobody reads the disruptor's email.
>
> The effects are radically different: "nobody reads" versus "people who
> consider guy's e-mail disruptive do not read".
>
> > Also, I'm not sure I agree that everyone should be forced into the
> > inconvenience of having to modify their spam filters just so that a
> > single person can continue to post.
>
> The inconvenience seem to be very minor given today's mail management
> software. When/if IETF starts managing its own lists, this can be
> further automated/simplified on IETF side.
>
> > If the problem is handled by having everyone put the disruptor's
> > name in the spam filter, then the chair has to send out an email
> > saying "all right, X has agreed to be a good boy/girl, you can take
> > him out of your spam filter now".
>
> Yes. More precisely, the chair will forward (quote) X's e-mail
> explaining X's intentions to the list. The decision to alter filters
> remains with each participant, as always.
>
> > Perhaps this kind of public humiliation would serve as a deterrent,
> > but I think it more likely that quiet negotiation and reintroduction
> > of the person into the WG community in a less intrusive way would be
> > preferable.
>
> I assume that quiet negotiation happens and fails before any action is
> taken:
>
> Chair: Would you please pause while we talk in private?
> X:     No (and continues to post 5 messages/minute)
> Chair: Posts "your options" e-mail on the list
>
> Chair: Would you please pause while we talk in private?
> X:     Sure (stops posting for a day)
> Chair: Let's negotiate the settlement in private
>
> Alex.
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpowr mailing list
> mpowr@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
>

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