Re: Moderation on ietf@xxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 01:16 PM 7/22/2014, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/22/14 1:07 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Perhaps instead - "We're considering approaches to manage noise on the IETF list. One possibility discussed by the IESG is providing moderators to remonstrate with the noise producers prior to action by the sergeant-at-arms. The IESG would like to solicit comments on this and also solicit guidance on other possibilities prior to making any decision".

I absolutely agree, with the caveat that "remonstrate" is probably a bit strong. I'd hope that that the moderator would be there to guide the discussion before remonstration is necessary.


When people argue about my word choices, I tend to go back to the dictionary to confirm I meant what I said.

In this case:

intransitive verb
:  to present and urge reasons in opposition :  expostulate ­usually used with with

I think this is pretty close to what I meant.  Chide, correct or amend would not be incorrect either.

If the "moderator" steps in too early, too often, the back lash will put paid to the experiment. So I expect that there will be an element of correction from the formal "facilitators" or silence.

Assuming of course that the IETF agrees to this.

Mike




pr

--
Pete Resnick< http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]