Jeroen Massar writes: > 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. Banning someone has the same effect, if that person has ever made any useful contributions at all (and that applies to just about everyone). Besides, you can filter without loss--by actually looking at messages. > 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. Most of the noise and disturbance I see isn't coming from a single person, but from a lynch mob so obsessed with silencing someone they don't like that they can't even do their jobs. Why aren't you working on something productive, instead of joining in this discussion, which precisely matches your apparent definition of useless noise? Why is it bad when someone else does it, but okay if you do it? > 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. What about excluding everyone else who whines about that person? Wouldn't that make sense, too? Then again, would there be anyone left if the same rules applied to everyone? > 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!? No, I don't ... but I don't discuss them on the public forum. I discuss them with my lawyer, and all corrective action is taken offline. When someone libels you to your employer, complaining about it on a mailing list is not the answer. > 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. Yes. There's no way to reliably eliminate spam in an automated way, so either you let it through and tolerate a lot of mail that isn't important, or you block it and lose legitimate messages that you need to see. I need to see legitimate messages a lot more than I need to block messages I find inconvenient, so I don't filter anything. That means I have to spend a few seconds deleting hundreds of spam messages or more each day, but it vastly diminishes the possibility of me losing legitimate e-mail. > 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... No, sometimes the ability to stay cool is way too low. But that's the problem of the person who flies off the handle, not anyone else. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf