RE: [ga] Question for Chair Candidates

["patrick" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Thursday, 20 December 2001 0:11, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> Well I alway considered it a personal limit, not something imposed
> like a traffic sign and sanctionable.

> And:

> * since this is a mailing list and
> * since automatically imosing such a posting limit per e-mail address
> would be childs play and

Hi Dan

I wish that were true.  As Alt Chair I spent considerable effort in trying to
introduce an automatic stop through the mailing list software.  As this was
seemingly beyond the capacity of the DNSO Secretariat, many complaints were
submitted about excess posting.  The result was that the List Monitors spent
too much time counting posts.

Worse, whenever disciplinary action was taken an outcry resulted either (a)
because that particular sanction was seen as undeserved or (b) because others
had got away with similar breaches.  Either way enforcement of the rule was
seen as "unfair".

Personally, I am convinced that the rule is impractical to enforce manually.
In other words the software should be programmed to simply reject any excess
posting.  The limit itself can be varied as the circumstances dictate.

> * since anyone getting around it by posting via multiple e-mail address
> would be either readily identifiable and easily sanctioned or posting
> so differently that if we cant tell its someone different we dont care

True enough but it has never been an issue.

> I came to the personal conclusion that the 'intent' of this particular
> rule was self-control.  So I followed it. And did not bother raising
> the issue when I suspected it wasnt being followed.  I figured either
> the extra post were extremely relevant and worthy of existence, or people
> would complain about it.

With any group of people, some will be more extroverted or outspoken than
others.  Their views may tend to inhibit the less outgoing.  A little
restraint on the excessive will balance debate for the other participants.

A side effect is to stifle, just a litle, a tendency of some to post
meaningless or ad hominem comments.  It will also reduce the volume a tad.
It's really a systemic measure to promote productrive and genuine debate.

> I think implementing fixed rules as a clerical or admin function, and
> exercising judgement and deciding when to enforce a rule and when to
> make an exception...to be a management decision.

As a generality, members of this list do not respond to authority and, in
particular, are not in favour of discretionary rules (however well
intentioned).  Any hint of inconsistency, such as a person getting away with
even a sinbgle post over the limit, will create a debate about the rules or
their interpretation.

My view is that some of this type of pedantry is purposive diversionary
tactics designed to ensure the impotence of the GA as a forum.  I therefore
tried to transfer it to a separate mailing list called [ga rules].

This attempt was stymied by those who should have known better.

As a result the excess posting limit has not been enforced.  I see that as an
undesirable outcome.

> What was happening here? I did not know. And since my personal filters
> work quite well it failed to be an issue with me.

As there is a general consensus in favour of restraint, it is reasonable for
the GA to want to introduce an excess posting limit.  This is not to deny the
rights of anyone to be heard but is simply a device to restrain thos who would
dominate the debate.

I would therefore ask the new DNSO Secretariat to revisit the automation of an
excess posting limit.  I would also ask the candidates their views on the
issue.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss



--
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