Theodore Ts'o writes:
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.
The problem with prior restraint, such as a ban, is that nobody ever
gets to respond to anything that doesn't toe the party line. That's a
general problem with all censorship.
With filters, the intolerance of one person doesn't influence that of
others. If he misses something and fails to respond to it because of
his filters, that's his own problem and his own fault. The fact that
he might be careless in filtering or might choose to filter things
that other people don't is not a justification for forcing the whole
world to observe the same restrictions.
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.
See above. Laziness and intolerance are (or should be) problems of the
individual, not the group.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf