RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I haven't posted for some time, but I do support the need to limit the
posts, so we can all get some work done and I think it helps us to be
thoughtful and more "editorial" about what we post... thus making it more
useful to our list colleages. Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark C. Langston [mailto:skritch@home.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 1999 11:14 AM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Cc: A.M. Rutkowski
Subject: Re: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper 



On 9 October 1999, "A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com> wrote:


>At 10:38 AM 10/9/99 , Mark C. Langston wrote:
>>Weren't there rules imposed on this WG?  Isn't everyone supposed to
>>be limited to two posts per day?  There's no impetus to abide by that
>>if several members are going to blow past that limit with no
>>consequences.
>
>How can such a rule be fairly established?
>
>Plainly very large numbers of posts may be a subject
>of concern.  However, if there is an ongoing
>dialogue on substantive topics, you cannot
>establish a rule that people cannot participate
>without effectively destroying the purpose
>of the forum.
>
>What if three issues are independently raised
>during the same day?  Such a rule would mean
>that you could address the first two, and you
>would be disenfranchised from addressing the
>third?
>
>Even in formal public policy making processes,
>there are no restrictions on participants'
>submissions.  You would establish a more
>restrictive rule for ICANN email forums?
>
>Let's encourage dialogue and expressions of
>views, not dissuade them.
>


Tony, that wasn't an invitation to argue the merits of the rules.
It was an indirect request that you (and everyone else) abide by
them.

You may think them unfair.  You may chafe at their imposition.
Feel free to do so.   But do it silently.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA