RE: Really?! - [wg-review] Re: Voters should indicate they voted!

["bukko" <bukko@od2.com>]

Anyone with any sense can see the purpose of this message.
The 3 postings rule is a good one!

bukko

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Derek Conant - DNSGA
Sent: 01 February 2001 18:28
To: Miles B. Whitener
Cc: Kent Crispin; Wg-Review
Subject: Re: Really?! - [wg-review] Re: Voters should indicate they
voted!


And, if certain members of this WG submit comments that do not conform
to what the Chair wants, those WG participants could be bound, gagged
and hog-tied too.

Derek Conant


"Miles B. Whitener" wrote:

> > In WG-C, a rule was imposed that limited people to 3 posts per
> day.  It
> > definitely helped considerably.
>
> This seems to be a good idea, if there's nothing better.
> The only suggestion I'd make is that it should be clear that the
> chair can change this value as needed.  In time-critical
> situations, chair might want to up the limit and hope the flamers
> will be quiet.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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