Re: [ga] Re: Additional Mailing Lists

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

At 10:19 AM 4/22/2001 -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > One note - I think it natural that the rules for monitoring of the new
> > mailing lists should be the same as for the GA list (decorum, chair can ask
> > for posting limit, list monitor team and suspensions).
> > I also think it natural that the lists have the same monitors as the main
> > list (although not all monitors will be on all lists, one could ask for at
> > least 2 of them to be on each), but that suspensions are per list, not for
> > all the GA lists.
> >
> > But I'm biased. Other thoughts?
>
>While I agree with *objective* "civil discourse" rules, I find that
>stifiling participation via posting limits is counterproductive to the
>very purpose of discussion lists.


         I agree with Patrick on many things, but like Joop I disagree with 
this one.  The GA, and GA mailing lists, can't produce useful work-product 
unless enough people with jobs and lives, from a variety of backgrounds, 
are willing and able to participate in the discussion.  When list volume 
gets too high, people drop out, and we end up with a small, closed circle 
of folks talking to each other.  Their ultimate agreement doesn't have 
credibility because it's not broad-based.

         Posting limits keep list volume manageable.  They also improve the 
quality of messages, because they force people to pause, and think, before 
hitting the send button.  In WG-C, after a period in which list volume was 
extremely high, and at the suggestion of WG-D, we put in place a posting 
limit of *two* (yes, two) messages a day.  It worked pretty well.

Jon

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html