kent crispin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:20:15PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Eventually you end up with multiple groups on a list: those who
irritate others, those who want to censor the ones they find
irritating, and--sometimes--a minority of people who are grown-up
enough to stay out of both of these groups and continue their normal
work, cheerfully ignoring the children at play on the list.
>
A fundamental aspect of group decision making is defining the group making
the decision. Uncoordinated individual procmail rulesets don't cut it if
there is any kind of accountability requirement.
The view that individual rulesets provide sufficient controls against
distracting or disruptive participants ignores some fundamentals of group
dynamics. In effect, it holds that there is no cost in having each participant
decide who is to be filtered. In fact, the cost is quite high. When a
participant must spend significant time filtering noise from content on a list,
it becomes easier to leave the list.
IETF lists are supposed to follow work agendas. Like any work group, they need
to be given the management oversight that is typical for performing that work.
This means asserting current topics, ensuring the topics are the focus of
discussion, and bringing unruly or distracting participants under control.
More typically, IETF groups have little or none of this oversight, so it is no
surprise that we find ourselves frequently debating irrelevancies.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf