Hi What we need to think for our Mailing list is some sanity so "people with a life could follow them" or not. I think making noise is different from making speech. I think the quote from debian-private posting at the bottom (approved by Sven and Ted) should explain this better. Anyway let me reply your post first. On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:17:07PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > There is a general rule (I don't know where it comes from) that reads > similar to "If the number of mails in a thread has exceeded ten (or a > screen height) it is already off-topic". Applying this rule to large > Debian lists is helpful if you don't read summaries. Anybody can do > that. Thanks for practical suggestion. But will this kind of ML behavior give us a good base for consensus? I doubt it. > If you are not interested in the other opinions or content, feel free > to discard it. However, there are people who consider it important to > voice their opinion. Maybe for debian-mentor, debian-user, debian-boot, ... this is good operation mode. But how about debian-legal or debian-project, where we hope to reach consensus. Here is a quotation from debian-private which prompted me to post here initially. Ted's proposal is much restrictive. On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 10:18:38AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 09:00:33AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, the amount of freetime one has can certainly be a limiting > > factor, since debian-legal is a major time-looser as soon as you > > disagree with what the vocal minority things there. > > For anything which is non-technical. there are enough people that use > the "last post wins" school of argument, where repeated assertions are > mistaken for cogent arguments, that some number of people (including > myself) have decided basically given up on participating in such > discussions. Life is just too short, and I have more important things > to do. > > My belief is that if Debian as a whole is willing to countenannce this > style of corporate decision-making (since the only two mechanisms seem > to be the rather heavy-weight GR process and the gladiatorial combat > by rhetoricians), then Debian, like the U.S., will get the kind of > governance it deserves. (And get it good and hard.) > > If on the other hand Debian is willing to think about alternate ways > of trying to promote more useful discussions, something that would be > useful would be a posting filter that only allows a limited number of > contributions from a particular poster per day. One could imagine > more sophisticated schemes where the number of posts per day would be > enhanced for each RC bug that the poster closed, but the bottom line > is by making posting a restricted resource, (a) we would keep the > traffic of certain lists down to a dull roar so that people with a > life could follow them, and (b) it would force people to edit their > contributions down to something thoughtful, since a "yes it is", "no > it isn't" style of discourse would use up all of their posts very > quickly. > > - Ted We are here to provide FREE softwares to the users. This is the result we are after. That is what we do well and important. We want to encourage thoughtful FREE speech and create productive environment to reach this result most effectively. Osamu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature