On 2023-10-15, at 23:27, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hiya, > > On 15/10/2023 21:44, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> you are also wasting a lot of time here on the list > > FWIW, I don't agree with the above. I think this discussion > rather highlights a difference between those who (I think) > have a more utilitarian view of IETF lists vs. those (e.g. > me) who think there's an important community building part > of IETF list discussion. Interesting! I’d say that the main utility of the list is its availability for community building. But that doesn’t work too well when there are DoS-level discussions going on as well. We don’t have very good mechanisms for detecting these events and essentially none for communicating that they are happening. > I imagine the former opinion leads > one to be more pernickity/strict about what's a good or bad > list message, Any message that approximately fits the list charter is good. 40 messages about a dead horse is not good (well, in this case the first 30 or so were quite reasonable, and then there was Patrik’s really useful input). > whereas the latter (my own position) is that > we should allow much more leeway(*) even if that comes at > the cost of an occasional ridiculous thread. (Like this > one, for which I'm partly at fault:-) This is both a matter of quantity and of the quality of the discussion. Of course, we’ll always differ in our assessments here, but we need to get better in reacting to those meaningless message explosions. Grüße, Carsten > > S. > > (*) I do not mean allowing rudeness or other agreed bad > practices. > <OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc>
