Re: [wg-d] "Interim Measures"

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 5 September 1999, Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com> wrote:
>
>In some of our Robert's Rules discussions here on WG-D it has been
>mentioned that most versions of those rules allow each person only one or
>two comments on any matter that is up for discussion prior to a vote.  
>(Note, that there is a distinction between the time that there's a motion
>on the floor for discussion and vote, during which time the restrictions
>are in effect, and the time when there is no motion pending and discussion
>is not limited.)
>
>And there is another procedural mechanism found in rules such as Roberts,
>which is that one person may not speak for a second time until everyone
>else has had a chance.  This can be tough in an e-mail setting, and I
>believe that Mark L. had some comments on this.
>
>(Both of those procedures would cut down my postings, for instance. ;-)
k

I've both witness and participated in mailing lists that programmatically
limited people to only x number of postings per time period (time period
being hour/day/week/quatloo).  This is an arbitrary rule, to be sure.
However, it forces participants to do something that isn't now enforceable:
Make every comment count.  True, there will be the odd git who will insist
on posting 500+-line diatribes wherein she quotes and replies to every
message in the past X days.  However, this is overcome with a line (or,
in the case of those people who insist on 255 character lines, character)
limit.

This makes every post count, to the greatest extent possible, it 
forces people to consider whether or not what they're about to say is
worth blowing their quota for that time period, and it tends to keep
posts informative, to the point, and on-topic.  It also serves to
reduce, in some cases greatly, the daily mean volume of messages to
a given list.

I could be easily persuaded that this would be an inherent good for
the WGs, given one very important factor:

I would not want this restriction to drive the majority of the work
off-line, into small (2-5 people) groups who meet in secret and
make decisions, unless those decisions are formally documented and
subsequently submitted to the group as a whole for a formal, recordable
vote.

I say this because I can see groups who would be willing to declare online
work invalid and unwieldly given this rule, and who would pursue efforts
entirely offline.  If said group had the proper constituents, it's entirely
possible that the results of such work would end up being pushed through
as the collaborative effort of all, without a chance for the body as a whole
to have a say in its form or substance.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org