I really don't want to participate in a flame-war about "moderation",
but
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com> wrote:
As long as WG chairs are trusted to determine WG consensus, I don't
see why they can't determine if a message is obviously irrelevant to
the tasks for which a WG was created.
It is a bad idea to assign to the same person the tasks of limiting
_input_ to a discussion and determining the _output_ of a discussion.
We should _try_ to move away from any discussion of whether our
leaders are "trustworthy", and instead discuss whether the _structures_
in place are designed correctly to achieve our purposes.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>