Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This is far from your usually decent logic.  For some reason you are trying to
force a result and then looking for some logic to back it up.  There is no reason
in this day and age to count number of posts it simply has no consequence.
Remember in school how the teacher told you how many pages your paper was to be,
but then went on to say more thoroughly basically how many characters per page.

The single most productive group in the history of the GA was the WG-Review.  I
speak of out put relative to time.  No posting limits, no monitor.  I further
note that you pick a time period in which you were completely absent - per your
logic you would have been a better contributor to the list than Corliss, who was
doing your job.  It is just as logical to heap praise on the people who
contribute the most.

What I am really interested in is why you would post to this subject rather than
to issues related to the Task Forces and upcoming NC seat.  By this very post you
are contributing that which you decry.

Sincerely,
Eric

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially express the
> sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA list that we must
> immediately act to correct the problem.
>
> I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in the last
> month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA list by 62
> individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all the posts.
>
> Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the number
> of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and noted that
> all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting limit on several
> occasions.
>
> 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10)
> 7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of
> violation -- (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)
> 4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,10,6)
> 4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,7,13)
> 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,7,8)
> 2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,6)
>
> It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints forwarded
> to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If this is the case,
> then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that excessive postings are a
> major part of our problem with this list.
>
> Let us consider what our list would have been like if these individuals were
> on holiday during the last month.  We would have received 502 posts from 56
> people spread over 31 days (an average of one post per individual about every
> 3-4 days).
>
> I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might best be
> served by further restricting the number of allowable daily postings in order
> to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list
> would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.
>
> It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your comments
> on this possible solution.
>
>
> --
> 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

--
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