Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > John Cowan writes: > >> Filtering him out individually, as I do, is insufficient: one still must >> read the polite or exasperated responses of others. I am almost at the >> point where I will filter any posting that so much as *mentions* him. > > Why don't you do that, then, so that he need not be banned just for > your convenience? And then suddenly somebody makes a seriously good contribution and your filter accidentally filters out that message which does have a lot of value and thus importance for the working group. The signal to noise ratio has risen way too much by all this talk about one person and simply takes away a lot of time from a lot of people who can do a lot more technically interesting work when that ratio is brought back to signal instead of just being noise. Being able to completely shutdown a person after having repeatedly warned that person about his behavior is the only real solution here. Another aspect is that the mailing lists also contains those non-technical,non-wg-relevant discussions which effectively are on the level of Usenet-alike flame war going back and forth in the mailing list archives. Anybody wanting to join the wg will only find those messages, possibly missing out on the things that really matter. That doesn't help in progressing the task of the working group at all. Discussions should be based on technical aspects relevant to that working group, not to a myriad of other arguments which are far from the topic of the WG's task. Yes, it is excluding somebody from giving his viewpoints, but it is not without arguments that this will be done and the person who this is bestowed upon has had many chances of bettering his way of posting and drifting off topic all the time. Note also that the PR only allows the complete banishment from the list if that WG decides that that is deemed necessary. Other WG's which do not have a problem with the postings of a PR'd person can freely choose to accept them, but of course then have a choice to ban the person too. [..] > But you still mention irrelevant matters external to this mailing list > in your post. Any personal problem you may have with someone outside > the list (or vice versa) is completely unrelated to IETF work or > mailing lists, and the inconvenience you suffer from having to press > the delete key is also only very tenuously linked to this list. Thus in your opinion you tolerate the behavior where people contact your boss for actions you take personally (IETF is on personal basis not on business basis, at least in theory) on a public forum!? Another way to look at your point of view is to say that mailinglists should accept spam. As the enduser who receives the list should simply filter them out. If somebody has a problem with you in the way you are behaving in such a forum one contacts the list administrator or working group chair. It's a list issue when it originates on the list, not a business issue, thus your boss has absolutely no relevance in this area. It more sounds like such a method can only be meant as a backstabbing 'teach a lesson' method to a person than anything else. What good does that bring? Or do you also call up the wife of the WG chair when you don't like his decision to complain to him that she should give him food that evening as you don't have any arguments left any more and simply start doing ad hominem attacks? > Maybe your employer's advice wasn't so bad. That is is true of course, looking at the situation, taking a bit of a stand-off point of view, reiterating things before doing etc are a good thing, but sometimes the SnR ratio simply becomes way to high... Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf