Subject: [hybi] Proposal: 3 or 5 posts per day maximum per list member?

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:03:04 -0400

In effort to incentive each of us to stay focused on our core
competency/points, and thus to disincentivize acrimony, I am proposing the
economic incentive of 3 or 5 posts per day maximum per list member.

I proposed this to the chair, and am awaiting a reply, but I had the
thought that the chair might be hesistant to force that on the list if the
list itself didn't want it.

I think this would accomplish several things:

1) It would minimize the errors in the concensus caused by 1 or a few
people controlling the debate via obfuscation (especially given the
limited time list members have to read each day).

2) It would force each list member to increase his/her S/N ratio and give
more careful thought before posting to the list.

3) It would strongly disincentivize wasting a post on acrimony.

4) It would disincentivize interminable pedantic debate, e.g. arguing both
sides of an issue in disjoint threads (which has the effect of obfuscating
and confusing rather than helping clarity).

5) It would incentivize convergence versus divergence.

6) It would incentivize positivity versus negativity.

7) It would eliminate much of an alpha male syndrome, and would allow the
true alpha male(s) (if we are all not equal in the context of this list),
to be self-evident without acrimony or resentment.  In short, it would
disincentivize the ego and politically correct syndromes that can stifle a
group effort.

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:16:15 -0400

Add: and that posts may not include replies to more than one thread.  The
reason being that we don't want the 3 or 5 limit to cause the thread model
to become destroyed (would become unreasonably difficult to follow the
threads).

I realize the 3 or 5 limit might cause a lot of discussion to move to
private and be lost from the public record, but I think that is a good
thing.

This proposal is motivated by Dr. Fielding's recent admonition to stop
doing design revisions spread out across interminable debate and instead
summarize in internet drafts. I think that is a bit too severe, as we
still need to have some debate. I am suggesting that we need to throttle
the public debate, in order to increase the quality of the signal.

> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>

---

From: Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:12:28 -0700

I don't know that we actually need to go so far as to limit the number of
emails on the list. After all, if we did that, you would have used up two
right there. I think what makes it somewhat hard for me as an individual to
follow, especially a few weeks ago in the days of Version III/IV/V/VI/VII is
that there was a new proposal every morning, and before I even had time to
draft feedback to the last proposal there was a new email thread with
"Proposal N+1" (and yes, I am guilty of it too.) Or, a particular issue
would get forked onto a new thread (or the subject line changed, which in
many mail clients has the effect of a new thread) whilst the same or
overlapping issues were still being touched upon in another thread.

Personally, and as editor, I am hopeful that putting out a new draft, even
if there are concerns about particular points, will at least let us discuss
and reference a single document rather than a whole string of emails that
make reading a proposal, such as your most recent one, more difficult than
they need to be. I am happy to note in a draft where there are still issues
/ lack of consensus and where there appears to be more consensus, I don't
mean to force a particular proposal down people's throats. To take a
concrete example, if you were able to reference a single proposal in your
last document, rather than a string of emails, and succinctly describe how
it differed (and if the "current draft" listed the use cases that had been
deemed important, such as sending a fragmented message without knowing the
complete message length a-priori) I think we would all have an easier time
understanding the proposed changes and verifying whether it did or did not
meet the checklist of use cases that have been brought up. Regardless of the
importance we may place on any individual one, we can at least have a
reference to issues brought up so that we don't constantly have someone
replying "but what about X from email dated DD.MM.YYYY?

-Ian

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:43:00 +0200

>economic incentive of 3 or 5 posts per day maximum per list member.

If "per day" means each message starts a new 24 hour window and you only
consider the first window in case of overlapping "violations", then in
the past two weeks for a five posts per day rule we had (assuming my ad-
hoc script performs reasonably):

  * seven people violating the rule once
  * two people violating it twice
  * two people violating it more often than that

It is quite reasonable to violate such a rule once per week (e.g., when
catching up with mails sent over the weekend), so that would leave only
two offenders: you by some margin, and John Tamplin (who only started
violating the rule shortly after you started posting to the list).

In fact, more than half of the messages sent to the list in the past two
weeks are from the two of you, and over a third of the messages is from
you alone in that period (that is three times the amount a five-per-day
rule would allow).

With these numbers I doubt that such a rule would have a noticable
effect on the list traffic if you yourself would abide by it. How about
we try that for a week and then check the numbers again?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:05:05 -0400

I should probably wait for more feedback on this thread before replying,
but perhaps my agreement with you below, will help others if there are any
who are timid.

> right there.

We would get 3 more tomorrow. I wouldn't be replying this fast, etc..

Without a hard limit, IMHO I think we will back-slide.

> I think what makes it somewhat hard for me as an individual
> to

I wasn't here for most of that, so I won't comment.  I noticed there was
difficulty just before I arrived, and my intent was to help, but it went
awry.

Skip the following to an important point below...

==========sort of off-topic===========
Maybe that sounds like hollow intentions or lie, but I genuinely believe I
did come here to help, although I will admit that I have an overriding
philosophy that is driving me (but it doesn't mean my technical input is
false):

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588704#c49

I am genuinely worried about a future of slavery where only the big server
farms are whitelisted (link above). Big brother thing coupled with a
global financial collapse of epic proportions (
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22161.html#comment94120 ), and then
we internet architects realizing it when it is already too late to do
anything. I realize that is off-topic, I am just admitting that it is
underlying in my motivations for what I choose to work on. I stopped
working for my own personal renumeration back in 2001 or thereabouts.

One thing I don't think people realize is that everything that is working
now may stop working because we are living in a false economic model that
has greatly misallocated resources. When it returns to the mean (and
overshoots), then our models of the what is economic may be turned on
their head and not work. I mean catastrophic failure of our architectures.
======================================

> it differed

Agreed.

And it would also help that when any person makes such a point/post, it
isn't drowned in 25 other posts in the same day that go off into such
detailed round-robin, that everyone forgets that the important point/post.

In other words, I think we need a hard limit, so that not any one person
can dominate/ofuscate (even unintentionally) via volume of posting.

For example, I would be less worried about refuting every smaller point,
if I knew the S/N ratio was higher, because I won't have to worry about
those smaller points being so numerous in time that they obfuscate some
bigger point I am trying to make. I don't know if others feel similarly.

> (and if the "current draft" listed the use cases that had been
> meet the checklist of use cases that have been brought up.

Agreed.

Forcing people to limit the public adventures they share, will lead to
less noise also in the number of issues that have to be compiled by you. 
Which then make it easier for those important issues to rise to the top.

There is no limit to the number of private adventures that people can
undertake before prioritizing their publicly shared ones.

> Regardless of
> the

Yeah I agree that is unwieldy, and I would welcome an improvement, as long
as it is on a fair footing.  I think forcing for example John to make his
points in 3 posts per day, would put me more on fair footing.  I don't
mean that to be insulting, because John has my gratitude for the immense
effort he has expended here, apparently well before my recent hard landing
here. I just don't know how else to make this list a fair and high S/N
ratio environment.

>> > disincentivize the ego and politically correct syndromes that can
>> stifle
>> a
>> > group effort.

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:52:41 -0400

Since there is no limit yet, and since you did an ad hominem attack near
the end, I will reply immediately.

> hoc script performs reasonably):

I am impressed that you wrote a script to do that so quickly.

> catching up with mails sent over the weekend),

It is still a violation.  It is all about prioritizing. We all have to
make choices in life.

> so that would leave only

Exactly my point:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03841.html

> you alone in that period (that is three times the amount a five-per-day

John's posts carry more public weight than mine do.

> we try that for a week and then check the numbers again?

I will abide with it, if everyone else has to.

I will not accept your implication that I am all to blame for John's
violation. I actually resent that implication. So better to tell you
frankly.

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:10:17 +0200

Shelby,

Before you went here, there were a lot less mails on this list. People
now spend their time posting to respond :
  1) to your ideas which often go in the opposite direction (eventhough
     some points are valid but poorly explained)
  2) to your personal attacks
  3) to ask you to stop using the list to spread your philosophical and
     political ideology

> ==========sort of off-topic===========

I'm impressed that you are able to notice that some of your points are
off-topic ! IMHO you should lower the cursor though.

> I am genuinely worried about a future of slavery ...
> Big brother thing coupled with a global financial collapse ...

You see, the same bullshit again and again. This has nothing to do on
this technical list and you won't get much consideration for your work
as long as you'll post such idiocies here. I respect your right to believe
what you want and to have faith in whatever you want, but please do not
push it on to other people who are trying to work with you, and keep it
for yourself.

> bigger point I am trying to make. I don't know if others feel similarly.

You've got some nerve ! *YOU* are the big noise generator on the list,
and most contributors have stopped posting when you started spreading
your philosophy here. Where are Daniel Stenberg, Anne van Kesteren,
Adam Barth, Mike Belshe, Maciej Stachowiak, and probably others I'm
missing ? All of them were very active and stopped posting a few days
after you joined (I did too). So simply let people work and you'll see
that the S/N ratio will improve again.

> I don't

You have the recipe above and it's only up to you. Also you promised to
unsubscribe to let people work, and finally the temptation was too strong
and you didn't respect your promise. Here's another opportunity. I'm even
not sending this mail to you personally to make it easier for you.

Thanks,
Willy

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:33:30 -0400

>      some points are valid but poorly explained)

Falsefiable?  If there is no way to prove that is false then it amounts to
nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

I sit here and take attack after attack after attack.  Is that fair?

>   2) to your personal attacks

And your personal attacks??  Where does it stop??

You got pissed off from the very start when I didn't agree that security
was the issue of handshake over Http Upgrade.  You were all smiles on my
first post to the list when you thought I was agreeing with you.  Then as
soon as I disagreed with your security argument, then suddenly I became a
villian.

Hmmm....

Go look in a mirror sir.

>   3) to ask you to stop using the list to spread your philosophical and

I can type what I want to type in my posts.  I happen to think it is very
relevant to the work here. And I am sorry if it pisses you off.  But do I
get pissed off by what you write in your posts?

You act juvenile, like you have no respect for free speech and as if you
can't control yourself to not read or skip something that you are not
interested in.

You silently building up hate.  I can feel it.  It is bursting inside of
you.  Every so often you go ballastic on me.

You write what you want and I will write what I want.  Stop trying to tell
me what to do.  I am not your slave.  I do not try to tell you what to do.

> off-topic ! IMHO you should lower the cursor though.

Are you truely impressed?  Or is that feigned?

You think of yourself as a tolerant, loving person?

> as long as you'll post such idiocies here.

If you disrespect my technical work because of my personal views on
economics then it means you are highly conflated in your concept of
tolerance and free markets.

> I respect your right to believe
> what you want and to have faith in whatever you want,

Thank you.  Please respect it.

> but please do not

I did not push it on you.  Did I grab your neck and push your eyeballs
into the screen??

I have the sneeking feeling that the real reason you are angry, is not
because you can't take 0.5 seconds to scroll past that, but because you
don't want me to tell anyone else here what I think.  You are afraid I
might just have some influence on them.

How dare I reveal the truth!!!

I am confident you have some vested interest.  It is always like that.

> You've got some nerve ! *YOU* are the big noise generator on the list,

Falseifiable??  Rather I can argue the opposite.  And quite convingly if
you want to sit down with me for 8 hours and we will go through every
post. But that would be an enormous waste of time, and your unproveable
attacks are really making it worse.

I have some nerve!  Yes to defend myself against baseless attacks.

> that the S/N ratio will improve again.

The S/N ratio was so high that you wasted 30% of the frame header until I
came along and showed you how to do it.

And now you don't want to admit it.

I don't know what those guys are doing.  It is not my need to judge them. 
All I know is Adam used obscenities to me in private email.  And that was
back when I had only been on the list for about 2 days and I was writing
about security.

Daniel started that asinine convincing by hammering thread, which I
squashed with science.  That I am sure was hard for you guys to eat.  It
just burns you that you can't squash me.  Well get used to it, because
even if the IETF bans me (and I don't know what possible legal grounds
they could stand on), you will not have squashed me. Never will you.
Because I am free under God.  You are nothing but a man.  And I guess you
didn't know that all men are filthy rags, it says so in the Bible.  And if
you want to disparage the Bible here, then go right ahead.

> You have the recipe above and it's only up to you.

No it is for everyone equally.  If you can't abide by it, then I don't
have to.

> Also you promised to
> unsubscribe to let people work,

I didn't promise.  I said "If that is what you want, I am gone".

Then after I collected my thoughts, I realized I could disprove your
asinine thread using science to shut you up.

And I know that just burned you deep.  I know it.  Because you don't want
to love and be tolerant.  You want to control.  You are a control freak.

> and finally the temptation was too strong

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:11:30 +0200

> I sit here and take attack after attack after attack.  Is that fair?

Think a moment why you're getting some then.

> soon as I disagreed with your security argument, then suddenly I became a

no I got pissed off when you started talking about your markets, communists
and I don't know what, which has nothing to do here, and I told you so, but
you can't accept that because of your apparent psychological disorder.

> Go look in a mirror sir.

done.

> relevant to the work here.

Several people have told you that this is off-topic.

> And I am sorry if it pisses you off.

No only, but it completely discredits your technical points, because you
suddenly switch from the respectable engineer to the childish sect adept
who spreads whatever fud it has been told to.

> But do I get pissed off by what you write in your posts?

possible.

> you.  Every so often you go ballastic on me.

At least you gave me a good laugh here ;-)

> me what to do.  I am not your slave.  I do not try to tell you what to do.

Ah, slaves again. You can write what you want, but at appropriate places.
Here I'm not talking about my hobbies nor what I did yesterday nor my
personal problems. I'm just exchanging about issues I identify with the
WebSocket protocol, and when I don't see any issue, or when I have no
idea about how to improve it, I shut up. There are other places where I
talk about other things, maybe even with the same people, but that's not
a problem. Mailing lists are not a group of people, they're a channel
focused on a specific subject. They are archived for people to search
through them. So it's important to stay focused on the right subject.

> You think of yourself as a tolerant, loving person?

Considering the way you try to wipe all people here's work when they
disagree with you, I think you should consider your own question.

> tolerance and free markets.

No, I respect your work AND your opinions. I disrespect your speech
when you conflate them both in a same message. It is not possible to
write a WebSocket draft that talks about economics, free market, big
brother and communists, that makes no sense at all. So this has nothing
to do here.

> I did not push it on you.  Did I grab your neck and push your eyeballs

Since you stuff them in the middle of your mails discussing technical
point, it's similar. It's hard to read one of your mails without stumbling
on that, to the point that I now rarely read your mails. And apparently
I'm not the only one.

> because you can't take 0.5 seconds to scroll past that,

it does not just take 0.5 second and it makes the reader lose the thread
of the discussion.

> but because you don't want me to tell anyone else here what I think.

Exactly, you were right to use the word "here". This is not the place.

> You are afraid I might just have some influence on them.

No, it's just that you disrespect their work. You never thought that
some people who left the list may have felt personally attacked by your
views because they think differently ? This is the reason why this has
nothing to do here. Period.

> I am confident you have some vested interest.  It is always like that.

Pffff... Another good laugh, thank you. I particularly liked the last
sentence, meaning that I'm not the first one to explain that to you but
you don't want to listen.

> you want to sit down with me for 8 hours

Oh no, I certainly don't want to do that. You already made me waste a long
evening exchanging posts that drove us nowhere but to your "personal view"
of the free markets and I don't know what.

> back when I had only been on the list for about 2 days and I was writing

And you never take a second to wonder why respected security researchers
talk to you badly after only 2 days of public exchanges ?

> they could stand on), you will not have squashed me. Never will you.

You should really consult a specialist.

> you want to disparage the Bible here, then go right ahead.

No, I respect your beliefs too, but once again they have nothing to do here
and you can't use them as a basis to justify your place on this list.

> asinine thread using science to shut you up.

So "bible", "communists", "free market" and "big brother" are your Science ?
Here a different science is used. Please stick to this one or leave.

> to love and be tolerant.  You want to control.  You are a control freak.

If you reread your phrase, you'll notice that you're speaking to yourself
to build up the tension inside yourself. I'm sure there's a name for this
disorder but I'm not a specialist. However I don't want to control anything,
quite the opposite, I'd like you to stop trying to shut everyone up, and
let all contributors participate. You are currently controlling everyone
with your attacks and you've managed to get a large place on the list by
eliminating everyone who does not have the time nor the will to fight
someone who's not worth it.

And I don't want to either. So please let us work.

Thank you,
Willy

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:34:28 -0400

Shelby Moore wrote:

> Falsefiable?  If there is no way to prove that is false then it 
> amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem attack.

[SNIP]

Shelby,

I normally would not respond to this sort of mail, but I thought maybe 
I can provide you some external insight.  As a outsider, reading the 
practically the entire archive to catch up before joining the list, 
you are not helping yourself at all.

You started out ok, made some technical sense, but I stopped reading 
your mail after it became redundant especially when it began to be 
filled with antagonism, religion and/or politics.  Right or wrong, all 
you going to do is make people filter your mail or just skip it.

The IETF process can be very troubling, long tedious process for many, 
especially for strong minded engineers such as yourself and others who 
have strong engineering convictions.  I also believe in common sense 
engineering and I genuinely believe it typically prevails.  You have 
to believe that otherwise the world would be more chaotic.

But to borrow, perhaps badly, one of the tenants of IETF protocol 
engineering:

    Be liberal in what you read, Be Conservative in what you say.

The last thing you want Shelby is to be ignored.  My suggestion is to 
cut down repeated messages after you made your point. The "My way or 
the highway" approach generally does not work around the IETF working 
groups. People do read the mail here, but we are all cyberspace humans 
and with all the volume, most people will begin to filter the redundancy.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:51:14 -0400

> Think a moment why you're getting some then.

I know why, because you can't tolerate others right to free speech.

If it was an issue with email volume, then this thread could be a solution
to that.

> and I don't know what, which has nothing to do here,

It stemmed from a discussion with you about your incorrect understanding
of computer security.  And it is very relevant technically. But just as
you weren't able to see how to save 30% of every frame header, you are not
able to see how it is relevant.

Just because you don't have the ability, does that mean that I should stop
writing about what I know and can prove to be relevant?

> and I told you so,
> but

Psychological disorder?  That is extremely libelous.  Does your company
know you are writing that?

Willy I am urging you to step back from the ledge of hate and vitriol. I
had no anger towards you. If you guys want to limit the email volume, I
was agreeable to hard limit on all of us. If you don't want, then you will
have to stop complaining about it. Make your choice please.

Also I wonder if some of you are destroying your professional reputations
with your irrate and ad hominem postings. Google remembers all of this
information. Your future employers (who might be Asians) can find out that
you are very intolerant of other belief systems and ways of looking at
problem sets.

For me, I have no problem with what I have written, because I have people
emailing me their support in private.  I had to actually convince at least
one of them that it is a sin to judge you all for what you are doing to
me, and that you can't help it, it is a cultural thing in the west about
control.  Besides I don't care about my reputation, I only care if I am
doing the right thing under God. I am sure I am not, but I hope he sees in
my heart that I am trying.

Again I urge you to find some way to vent that anger.  Maybe get a
punching bag, and tape my photo or name on it. That would be preferrable
than wasting time here.

So I assume then that the posting hard limit is not acceptable?

> Several people have told you that this is off-topic.

Several people have told me it is on-topic.  And even if several people
had not, I would still have a right to write it if I am smart enough to
see something that you people can not.

And I am reasonably sure I am.

> who spreads whatever fud it has been told to.

Oh that is your assumption, but it because you haven't understood the math
yet.  It has nothing to do with sect.  I hate sects.  I developed that
understanding from 5 years of my own independent research. And actually I
will be able to come to you in about 5 years and you will be on your knees
saying that you wished you had listened to my math.

>> But do I get pissed off by what you write in your posts?

I don't think so.  I get pissed for about 10 seconds when you write
hateful emails to me.  But it passes very quickly, because I don't have
any need to hate you.  Why would I?  You are not threat to me.  You are
just a man and I love all people.  If you were sticking a knife in me
every minute in a torture chamber, I might hate you.  But maybe not,
because I don't hate the hoodlums that attacked me and blinded me in right
eye.  I prayed for them.

> At least you gave me a good laugh here ;-)

Well that is good :D

I prefer a laugh, I didn't know if jokes were also frowned on around here.

> personal problems.

It is relevant. And if it is not relevant to you, then fine you can just
skip that stuff. Or you just skip all my emails if it really causes that
much of a problem for you.

> I'm just exchanging about issues I identify with the
> WebSocket protocol,

WebSocket very much relates to my points about the near future.  It needs
to be designed in a way that anyone can easily run it on other ports in
future.  That can be achieved if do not conflate the layers.

> and when I don't see any issue, or when I have no

There has not been a single post of mine that did not contain technical
information.

If I insert something else in my post once in a while (like maybe every
50th post), then I think it would be more efficient for you to ignore it
than to fight a jihad over it.

> disagree with you, I think you should consider your own question.

So now we see the vested interest.

The reason you don't like my points about the slave of client-server 
model, and about how in 11 years you guys can make standards to even
encrypt the cookies, it reflects badly on your efforts.

Sorry the truth hurts sometimes.  I have had my failures too.  Google
"AccuSpam".

> brother and communists, that makes no sense at all. So this has nothing

That doesn't not going in the draft.  So much of what we write here does
not go in the draft.  We share ideas.

> on that, to the point that I now rarely read your mails. And apparently

Why does it bother you so much to stumble on something?  The scroll wheel
on your mouse has large spikes on it? :D

> it does not just take 0.5 second and it makes the reader lose the thread

As what I understand about how the brain learns via annealing, that is
actually a good thing.  We get stuck in a local minima of the global
solution space, and we need to do something entirely different to dislodge
that gradient search over the hill and into a deeper valley of the
solution space.

God put everything here for a reason.  Try to be tolerant and much more
wisdom will come to you naturally.

> Exactly, you were right to use the word "here". This is not the place.

But that isn't your right.  I have control over my speech, not you.

Respect freedom please.  Or we can reduce the freedom for all if you like
as I prosposed in this thread???

> No, it's just that you disrespect their work.

I respect all work, even work I disagree with.  God put everything here
for a purpose.

But I think competition is important.  I am not much concerned with my
reputation.  I will give you all the dirt on me if you want it?

Because I don't live this life to impress others.  I live this life for
him and hopefully to love others.  I do feel I am fighting for the rights
of the users. And I hope you do too. That would be great, even if we
disagree on what the users want and need.

> You never thought that

Any philosophy that is intolerant of other philosophies has a problem.  I
don't agree with that whole politically correct culture.  I was told by
the Bible to spread the word.  It never said to not spread the word in
technical forum.  And the word I spread here are economic truths that
apply to our technical decisions.  Specifically conflation.

> you don't want to listen.

Yes your vested interest is that I can not express what I think is
relevant, if a few others don't think it is relevant.  That is suppression
of the minority by the majority. That is proven to be a failed economics.

> of the free markets and I don't know what.

I made you?  I did not make you do anything.  I did not ask you to write
that scathing attack.  I simply made a thread suggesting that if we want
to limit email volume, we can.

> talk to you badly after only 2 days of public exchanges ?

Yes because they are wrong, but they have to protect their reputation,
because they are really worried about their status. I knew immediately why
Adam went ballastic.  I have seen it too many times in my life, it is
repeated pattern.  It gets so old, but I sigh and bear it.

> You should really consult a specialist.

A specialist in?  Please say it so it is on the record.

> and you can't use them as a basis to justify your place on this list.

Beliefs in what?  Because technology is a form of belief too.

> So "bible", "communists", "free market" and "big brother" are your Science

Most definitely, if you had studied it scientifically then you would know
too.

> Here a different science is used. Please stick to this one or leave.

Math is not a science??

> to build up the tension inside yourself.

No I was releasing tension that was caused by my blood pressure going up
from that scathing attack of yours.

> I'm sure there's a name for this
> disorder but I'm not a specialist.

Disorder involving what?  A part of my body?  Which part?

> However I don't want to control
> anything,

hahaha.

> quite the opposite, I'd like you to stop trying to shut everyone up,

Only the assinine ad hominem attack thread ("convincing by hammering") I
wanted to shut up.

> and
> with your attacks

Who is attacking?  Go back and read this thread from the start.  You
attacked me.

> and you've managed to get a large place on the list by

Maybe they are not worth it.  I am not going to judge them, so don't judge
me.

> And I don't want to either. So please let us work.

Yes please let us work and stop the attacks.

Again do you want the email limit or not?  Make your decision.

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:01:19 -0400

I agree.

And if the list would like to agree to a hard limit of 3 or 5 emails per
day per member, then I would be happy to abide by it.

========================
To be honest I think this list is becoming a waste of my time.  It is
probably time to go implement and stop talking.

---

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:05:55 +0200

Enough time wasted now. Since you don't understand, welcome to /dev/null.

Bye,
Willy

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:14:20 -0400

> Enough time wasted now. Since you don't understand, welcome to /dev/null.

I will not put in you in /dev/null Willy.  You will stay in my heart.

God bless you.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:54:36 +0200

On 29.08.2010 09:51, Shelby Moore wrote:
> ...
> ...

I think a limit is a nice experiment. Try it for yourself for a few 
days, and then let's measure the impact on the complete traffic.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 05:48:34 -0400

> days, and then let's measure the impact on the complete traffic.

I did not offer to limit my freedom without reciprocation.

I had originally argued against it:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03688.html

I am an anarchist.  Did you know who the famous Eric Raymond is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=151 (Inciting to riot)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 (“Condemning Censorship, Even of Werewolves”)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1337 (Fearing what might be true)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1387 (DO NOT CONFLATE)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1404 (Ego is for little people)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1551 (Escalating Complexity and the Collapse of
Elite Authority)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1595 (Jews and the tragedy of universalism)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1729 (Being an oracle is weird)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2433#comment-275794

"The shadow-autism/shadow-Aspergers you see in a lot of geeks produces
very introverted cerebral people who don’t solve the other-minds problem
well; they are poor at emotional communication and with a very few
exceptions (Richard Stallman being one) have zero or negative charisma on
stage. Shadow-Tourette’s cases like me are “opposite” because we’re
extroverted charismatics by nature. The combination of shadow-Tourette’s
with an intellectual geek forebrain is very, very rare."

---

From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:44:47 +1000

> I did not offer to limit my freedom without reciprocation.

As somebody who was previously one of the most verbose posters on this
list, I have already been inspired by your many words to limit my
postings. I don't see this as a limit to my freedom, just a tuning of
my own S/N ratio.

> I am an anarchist.  Did you know who the famous Eric Raymond is?

There is no eric conspiracy!

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:03:12 -0700

Hi Shelby,
>economic incentive of 3 or 5 posts per day maximum per list member.

I note that you have been above the limit you proposed above.

>limited time list members have to read each day).

If you have any issues with the consensus, please explain the issue 
and what action should be taken.

This topic does not fall within the WG Charter and doesn't look 
relevant to the work this working group is doing.  Please do not post 
on this thread anymore.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:26:37 -0400

Nearly certain my final post...

> I note that you have been above the limit you proposed above.

I proposed in this thread and clarified in the prior post that I did not
agree to limit my freedom if it was not a reciprocal rule for everyone.

> and what action should be taken.

I have here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03854.html

And in a follow up to that, I have stated that this post is my final post
to the list:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03857.html

> relevant to the work this working group is doing.

Numerous people in this WG have stated they want a higher S/N ratio and
lower volume of postings to read. Thus this thread was an attempt at a
very relevant proposal to try to give what people requested. I do
understand that some WG members are of the opinion that removing me is
sufficient to raise the S/N ratio, and I urge them to NOT read the above
two links, as it may destroy their ignorant fantasy.

>  Please do not post

You asked me to explain above, then you tell me not to reply.  Those are
mutually inconsistent instructions, so I chose to reply and explain. If
your intent was for me to explain on another thread, then it would be
disingenious because someone who was later reading this thread, would not
know if I had explained.

If you do not ask me to do something in this thread, I will not reply
again in this thread. Besides I am nearly certain this is my final post to
this WG.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:43:56 -0700

Hi Shelby,
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03857.html

This is completely unrelated to the work this working group is chartered to do.

>disingenious because someone who was later reading this thread, would not

In case you misunderstood what I said, I will restate it.  This 
thread is off-topic.  Please do not discuss about this further on 
this mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary