Re: Limiting number of post from a poster per day per list
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 09:04:31AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > We all know we waste too much time on ML discussing and reading many
> > postings. We must have some rule for ML to improve this situation.
>
> Aha, silencing the poster will improve the situation?
My intent was to encourage people to post well organized posts and
reduce noise on ML (Mailing list) by having "some fair rule".
My wish here is to identify this rule which makes us more effective
while not silencing good discussion.
I understand you have grave concern to this proposal. Let's have a
constructive discussion.
> > I think limiting a number of post per user (per ML) will help reduce
> > noise in our discussion on ML. Perticulary -devel, -legal, ... I think
> > this limit can be purely honor system initially.
>
> There's no way to stop people from useing foo@bar.org for the first 5
> posts, then foo@myhost.bar.org for the next 5, then foo@otherhost.bar...
> This will only result in stupid addresses on the lists.
I knew this well. Thus I did not rush to propose simply blocking mail
address but proposed to say "honor system" and "guideline".
> Limiting free speech for list contributors is probably not what the
> Debian project should do.
I have to admit that this is a stong argument which I almost yield to it.
But how many of us understand what is going on within Debian ML without
reading your nice summary? Why? I think this is because we have too
many mails for most DDs to digest.
I think contribution comes not only from the poster but also from the
reader. So the resource requirement load needs to be balanced between
thewse 2 sides. As long as the posting guideline is based on fair set of
rules with enough flexibility, it should help us all.
If IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) has some rule set as I
overheard, may be it is worth looking into.
If Linux Kernel ML has thread kill by moderator(s) as Colin said in
reply to my original post, I think this should be looked into. (I can
see issues with this too.)
If some MLs such as debian-boot require high posting, then we should not
deploy number based rule.
Regards,
Osamu
PS: This posting has original origin at debian-private discussing
effectiveness and usefulness of debian-legal. If I get OK from other
people, I will post their key message here.
Reply to: