Rob, you seem to be assuming that even though the community discussed and agreed that this was more useful than harmful in the past, the obligation is on the poster to post a new draft and get agreement now. Given that there was an established policy, it seems that if you want to change the prior agreement, the onus is on you (plus whomever agrees with you) to write a draft and get rough consensus that this should be stopped.
For clarity, I am among the people who find the posting mildly useful, mildly interesting, and consider that it has a very low cost to the community. (NO, I do not consider that I should draw a conclusion about anyone strictly on the basis of those numbers.)
Yours,
Joel
Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I’m also very specifically part of the (mostly silent) consensus that has supported receiving these weekly messages> since 2006, with a gap until JohnL filled it again. Thank you!
If there is consensus here, then let's have a draft. It's ok if my view loses there, but it's not ok to insist there is consensus without going through the process.
The reason I don't like it is because I find mixing bot traffic with human messages a bit abusive. There is no increased transparency, either. The messages are all public. It's pretty easy to see that someone is posting too much or getting in a flame war.
thanks,Rob
