Re: [mpowr] Mailing List Management

[Alex Conta <[e-mail]>]

[e-mail] wrote:

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

I have not experienced a mailing list disturbed by "personal invective" 
postings. Do you have a pointer to one?

Certainly, this type of messages addressed to a certain person
fall into "violating a code of conduct".

I didn't have in mind this type of messages.

However, this type is easy to categorize, and it
is much easier to ignore, or filter.

On the other hand, "off-topic", and "out of scope" is relative.

There is a difference between advertising pills on a TCP list and
messages about "flow control", on a thread discussing
"congestion control" (off-topic).

It would be very useful, if "disruptive" would be very clearly qualified.

Alex

> 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
>>
> 
> 
>