On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 04:36:11PM +0100, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must
read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the
point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him.
Why don't you do that, then, so that he need not be banned just for
your convenience?
The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail
to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered
out, it is trivially easy to claim rough consensus. So if everyone
followed your advice (except for the poor wg chair, who has to judge
consensus, so he/she would be forced to read through all of the
dreck), it would be trivially easy for a group to get something past
the wg; just have 2 or 3 people suggest something that would normally
be controversial, insert the keyword "<Jefsey> somewhere in the text,
and then when no one responds because they have all filtered out any
text containing the word "Jefsey", the 2 or 3 people can claim rough
consensus and the change goes in. :-)
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf