Re: [ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Actually, my recollection is not the same as Eric's. I distinctly remember
proxy posting priviliges being accepted without complaint in similar
circumstances, whereby member A advocated on an issue particularly well, and
was given member B's proxy to speak on their behalf, therefore member A
could exceed a 5/day limit that had been imposed temporarily. Consequently,
I thought it *was* accepted practice of the GA, or certainly WG's.

Whether it *should* be treated as BEST PRACTICE or not is another ISSUE, but
it seems to occur so infrequently, it doesn't seem worth a CALL FOR ACTION.

While I did not identify the relevant URLs in the Archives as I had hoped, I
did come across a position paper on procedural issues from Kent, posted only
about six months ago, which may be of interest:-


"It is important, though, that WGs have some procedural freedom -- the
criteria for success of the WG should be the documents produced, not how
slavishly the WG followed procedure.  This procedural freedom is
necessary if the procedures are to evolve and develop over time."  (*)

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01428.html

Regards,
Joanna

 

on 7/16/01 12:59 AM, William S. Lovell at wsl@cerebalaw.com wrote:

> Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but I have been given to
> understand that proxy posting was accepted as standard policy in
> WG-Review, which also had a 5/day rule, in which I am told you
> participated.  If that is true, I could only say that your position as
> stated here is disingenuous at best.
> 
> Those more familiar than me with that operation might fill us all in
> here -- if such a "proxy rule" was not used there, then obviously
> I withdraw my remarks.
> 
> So explain how your stated preference that the posting limits not
> be circumvented is consistent with your acceptance of a process
> wherein a person gets the post in anyway by having someone
> else do the posting?  Does that not circumvent the purpose of
> the posting limit?  Does that not elevate form over substance?
> Is that an honest way to conduct business?
> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 07:08:26PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>>>> Sorry.  First of all, none of the above are real problems -- they are
>>>> all just whining about inconveniences.  Second, list software wouldn't
>>>> handle proxies, anyway.  If you want to send a message to a person, and
>>>> have them forward it for you, that works under any scenario.
>>> 
>>> Case in point: I would almost use up my limit for the day simply if I
>>> responded to Patrick Corliss and no one else.
>> 
>> Why on earth do you think that you would have to respond to every email by
>> Patrick Corliss, or anyone else?
>> 
>>> So I gather you can be put down as one who would prefer the post
>>> limit rules to be circumvented by artifice, rather than by the
>>> establishment of some recognized procedure that would allow
>>> a full response by someone being deluged.  So be it.
>> 
>> No.  I would rather that the posting limits not be circumvented.
>> 
>> --
>> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
>> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html