[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper
[NOTE TO CHAIRS: *PLEASE* enforce the rules in this instance.
This is over and done with, there was plenty of notice that it
was occurring, from Santiago onward. We're getting bogged down
by one vocal person who won't let an issue drop, and he's doing
it in violation of the rules handed down from the NC.]
On 12 October 1999, "A.M. Rutkowski" <email@example.com> wrote:
> >This is exactly why I support the 2-post rule.
>Contemporary email client technology - even that available
>for free - allows extremely easy filtering, channelling,
>and summary display of messages. There exists a good
Really? nmh is contemporary. It doesn't do that. "mail" is
contemporary. It doesn't do that. If I dug for a few minutes, I
could probably give you a list of other "contemporary" MUAs that don't
do what you just described. Don't assume.
>self-indexing system on the website that allows all
>messages to be seen by threads at a glance, or from
>a time perspective at a glance - allowing rejection
>of all messages and simply using that visualization
>Whenever governmental legislative bodies have sought
>to impose filtering or other kinds of artificial limits
>on people, those limits have been characteristically
Untrue, as refuted by others in this WG.
>Yet here - in a rule being devised for permanent
>application of ongoing collaborative and policy making
>processes - an artificial limitation is being considered.
It's not "being considered". It's already implemented. You had a
chance to debate it, even influence and help create it, in WG-D. The
NC decided on this, directed WG-D to come up with guidelines. WG-D
did this. The chairs delivered it to the group, and now stand to
>The only thing that an artificial 2-post rule accomplishes
>is to stifle open discussions. It is ironic that this
>would be considered for an Internet forum, when no other
>known policy making or judicial forum in the world has
>such a stricture.
Again, irrelevant and wrong, as it's been refuted by others
Mark C. Langston
San Jose, CA