RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

This is exactly why I support the 2-post rule.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 12:18 PM
> To: 'Mark C. Langston'; wg-c@dnso.org
> Cc: A.M. Rutkowski
> Subject: RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper 
> 
> 
> I haven't posted for some time, but I do support the need to limit the
> posts, so we can all get some work done and I think it helps us to be
> thoughtful and more "editorial" about what we post... thus making it more
> useful to our list colleages. Marilyn Cade
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 11:14 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Cc: A.M. Rutkowski
> Subject: Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 October 1999, "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >At 10:38 AM 10/9/99 , Mark C. Langston wrote:
> >>Weren't there rules imposed on this WG?  Isn't everyone supposed to
> >>be limited to two posts per day?  There's no impetus to abide by that
> >>if several members are going to blow past that limit with no
> >>consequences.
> >
> >How can such a rule be fairly established?
> >
> >Plainly very large numbers of posts may be a subject
> >of concern.  However, if there is an ongoing
> >dialogue on substantive topics, you cannot
> >establish a rule that people cannot participate
> >without effectively destroying the purpose
> >of the forum.
> >
> >What if three issues are independently raised
> >during the same day?  Such a rule would mean
> >that you could address the first two, and you
> >would be disenfranchised from addressing the
> >third?
> >
> >Even in formal public policy making processes,
> >there are no restrictions on participants'
> >submissions.  You would establish a more
> >restrictive rule for ICANN email forums?
> >
> >Let's encourage dialogue and expressions of
> >views, not dissuade them.
> >
> 
> 
> Tony, that wasn't an invitation to argue the merits of the rules.
> It was an indirect request that you (and everyone else) abide by
> them.
> 
> You may think them unfair.  You may chafe at their imposition.
> Feel free to do so.   But do it silently.
> 
> -- 
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA
>