Distracting from the topic yet again....--On 24. januar 2006 05:24 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Theodore Ts'o writes:The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered out, it is trivially easy to claim rough consensus.The problem with prior restraint, such as a ban, is that nobody ever gets to respond to anything that doesn't toe the party line. That's a general problem with all censorship.
I've seen this claim several times, and it still makes my head hurt to try to relate it to the real world.
If what is important is having an opinion stated, there is no barrier to having a friend (that is, a real person, not an alternate email account) say "I hear from X, and he says...." on your behalf.
Of course there are two cases where this is a problem:- When, among the participants with posting rights on the list, there isn't a single person who is willing to pass on your opinion - When you are so sure that your words are the perfect expression of what you are trying to say that you refuse to let anyone else touch them before posting
Since this is in the context of the concept of "censorship", there is a third category:
- where the act of passing on your opinion puts the other person in immediate danger of being refused posting rights
I haven't seen that as a realistic fear in the IETF.
Harald
Attachment:
pgpEYmYoLn0iM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf