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

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Let's chill out a bit on this issue, everyone.  For one thing, Tony
*hasn't* gone above two posts/day since all this came up.  There's no law
-- nor should there be -- that says he can't use his posts to argue that
the rule is bad.  Second, if some list member should happen to go above two
posts per day on an occasional basis, I'm not going to read him the riot
act -- so long as it's only occasional, we've got better things to do with
our time.  Finally, to the extent that the rest of us are concerned with
list clutter, we can lessen it by spending less time arguing about this.
(OK?)

Jon



At 09:03 AM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>[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" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Roeland,
>>
>> >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
>>tool.
>>
>
>Irrelevant.
>
>>Whenever governmental legislative bodies have sought
>>to impose filtering or other kinds of artificial limits
>>on people, those limits have been characteristically
>>opposed.  
>
>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
>enforce it.
>
>>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
>previously.
>
>-- 
>Mark C. Langston
>mark@bitshift.org
>Systems Admin
>San Jose, CA
>
>