Re: Keeping working groups open: Was Re: A non response ...

[Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>]

> And you are an objective source for deciding what is pointless or not,
> I assume?

It is precisely because there is no universally accepted objective
source that it is impossible mandate acceptabled behavior on an open list.

> I thought your idea was to get things working and not to discuss them
> endlessly. So, what if someone asks or says something that is obvious to
> the rest of us. Maybe we can help, maybe we (you) will flame the person.

I would prefer that people excercise restraint.  In the absence of
restraint, I can rely only on the good will of the community to keep
people in line.

> So what? Only a click on your next button/function in your mail handler
> is required. Most of the discussions here are of some value to a lot of
> people. It is surprising to see, you mail so few flaming responses.
> It appears you do have something better to do.

The problem is that I, and a lot of other people still have to read all
of this stuff.  Now, if someone genuine question, no matter how basic,
this isn't a problem--reading and answering a real question is a
productive investment.

The problem is when people "who should know better" make "pointless"
postings.  Not only does this waste everyone's time to read it, but it
also adds the usual "fear, uncertainty,  and doubt" factor into the
mailing list, requiring that the "responsible" people on the mailing
list, the folks who are doing "real work", go into damage control mode.
This is a tremendous waste of resources.  The people in question should
exercise some restraint, or at the very least, should think a bit before
posting...

/mtr