[OpenID] SNR

[Dave CROCKER]

John Bradley wrote:
> I encourage everyone to take a deep and thoughtful breath before we
> accidentally head down a path I don't think any of us want to take.

Interesting topics often prompt uninteresting and counter-productive exchanges
via email.  (The first real mailing list was around 1974, discussing email, of
course, and 'flaming' appeared on it immediately.  So the problem seems to be
built into the nature of email.)

I believe it helps quite a bit to have a clear set of list rules documented,
including a clear statement of the enforcement policy.  This, in turn, requires
applying enforcement.  This need not be mechanically inhuman; rules can permit
rehabilitation after a transgression, without severe penalty.  The point is that
limits need to be clear, and enforcement needs to be meaningful.


DeWitt Clinton wrote:
> I wouldn't want to see preemptive moderation in place, either, but I
> come to a different conclusion.

In case I was not being clear, I am not suggesting list moderation.  I am
suggesting agreeing on the participation rules, and then publishing them and
then enforcing them.  In the absence of moderation, enforcement is of course
after the fact.

I haven't seen list moderation work, for a group that is trying to get real work
done, because the moderator is a bottleneck and the load imposed on them is too
high.  (One might consideration moderation for participants placed into the
penalty box, but my own view is that it's not worth the effort.)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net