Subject: RE: we need a new mailing list

From: "Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 20:59:19 -0400

Marc,

Careful!  Censure is a very touchy subject.  Those whose opinions you do not
appreciate are best handled by either filtering them yourself or by ignoring
them completely (best approach).

Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Horowitz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 7:28 PM
To: Flanigan, Bill; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Sascha Ignjatovic;
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: we need a new mailing list

"Flanigan, Bill" <[email-masked]> writes:

>> I feel it's not so much a question of "(w)hat it would take to
>> create such a mailing list" as it would be to keep it on
>> target--charter or no charter.  How do you folks envision that this
>> could/would be done?  Bozo filters?  List moderator?  Periodic
>> purges?  A progression of lists each with a life of, say, six
>> months?  Or...?

Well, the first problem as I see it is that [email-masked] has no
useful charter.  Once we have a list with a useful charter, then we
can see what happens.

If someone showed up at a physical meeting and kept making comments
which weren't on-topic for the meeting, I assume that eventually, that
person would be removed.  As practically anything internet-related is
on-topic for [email-masked], either we need to change the charter of
the list (hard), or create a new list (easier).  I'm personally not
against filters for people who post off-topic on the new list.

		Marc

---

From: Marc Horowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Sep 1998 21:49:15 -0400

>> them completely (best approach).

I don't believe that preventing off-topic discussion is censorship,
especially when the *same organization* provides a forum where it was
appropriate.  The issue here is not opinions with which I disagree, it
is conversation which is completely off-topic.

If I repeatedly insisted on asking questions about dog grooming in a
physical WG meeting, would you just ignore me?  I hope not.  That
would be insulting to the people who spent good money to come to that
meeting to get relevant work done.

		Marc

---

From: Marc Horowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 Sep 1998 21:49:15 -0400

Marc

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:36:27 +0200 (MET DST)

> is conversation which is completely off-topic.

anybody with a litle brain can understand and accept this 

make a "stronger" charter for the ietf list and stick to it 
and keep everything "out of the charter" out of the list  easy 

> meeting to get relevant work done.

thats also good sayed and explained  thank you 
-but when you are a dog lover and there is a apropirate place for you to
discuss the dog isue you would rather love to go there and discuss them
than to go to the ietf meeting where nobody is liking to talk about
dogs with you :-)

there is a need for a high profile/level list for discussion of other 
internet matters like policy  economie etc...

i have ignorantly sugested/asked one for time the concept of 

internet policy task force 
internet economie task force 

but ietf people hase sayed they are not inchargt to create such forums 

i than asked isoc for help and lead 

if there are such forums than much of the off topic discussion to the ietf 
would be shifted there 

shure the "same" problem may ocure there too  that some too "vocal" people
with  "dedicaited opinions" may "take over" the list/process and prevent a
"meaningfull" discussion/decisions too 

but for them we may make 

"internet democracy talk force" 
-it is only a joke :-)
 
i am shure as there is a other forum to discuss other internet aspects the 
"preasure" on the ietf list will ease -at least i hope so 

but i am also interested in "quality" discussion level for the other 
lists/organisations-but this is something wich can be discussed on this
lists -lucky ietf :-) 

> 		Marc

thanks
sascha
ps.sorry if this "demands" are comming in a busy time for some people like
mr.heath who is also very involved with the actual internet policy matters
and also if this "demands" are not "right" for any reasonable reason 
or they are not apropriate at this time 

but it would be good to know "who and how" means wich organisation may be 
"autorised" to start a process wich could lead to implementation or even 
"aproval for further discussion" of such new organisations means that they
should be in the authority and hirarchy-means "democracy":-) line of
internet ?  (or what are arguments against this efforts?)

i am sorry to post this "internet policy infrastructure organisation
matters" again hier to the ietf list but there is no a officialy
dedicaited other list for that :-)

soo... ?:-)

pps.who or to whom "to submit" (officialy) such "proposal-idea"-wich may
    be not new  if right?
    -or better say i have done it already :-)

    thanks

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 06:36:27 +0200 (MET DST)

but for them we may make 

thanks
sascha

soo... ?:-)

    thanks