Subject: RE: Question for the list

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:35:52 -0400

If you are using Mailman, you have the option of requiring postings from the
offending participants to obtain your approval before going forward to the
list.  This, of course, is a last resort -- I expect it would be very
difficult to justify such an action without a well-defined set of criteria
to say which messages would get through.

This thought suggests something to me: you gain consensus on your list for
the acceptable limits of discourse.  You could possibly impose the penalty
of a day's suspension for violation of the rules, with increasing durations
for further violations.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Question for the list

Hi, I have a quick, off the wall question for the list.  I'm looking for
some tidbits and advice.   

Here's the scenario.  Say there is this group of people from the same
organization (or it could be one person for that matter) who respond so
agressively on the list as to appear to be a "filibuster". Note for the
record - this is not a large, west coast organization. 8-)  We are
experiencing just such an attack - it has now reached the stage that it has
driven some people away from the list. 

My question is this - how do other chairs handle that?  Is there any special
technique.  Here's what we've done so far. 

1. Asked the group on the list to "back off" (in a nice way) 
2. Talked privately to members of the group at an IETF meeting asking the
same thing 
3.  Talked privately to try and determine what is the issue. 

One other point, they seem to attack one person in particular.  However, in
checking back on the list, other unlucky souls have received equal emphasis.

I know this goes on all the time - however, this one is getting a bit out of
hand.  So, I'm looking for some sage advice.  thanks in advance.

---

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:36:18 -0700

I think you would have a VERY hard time getting this kind of thing
through the IETFs rules... In fact I bet you would either have to wait
too long for the penalty to take effect, or violate rules...

Why not do the easy thing... Send a simple note to the victim saying I
have noticed that you appear to be picked on... While I don't condone
this behavior it is difficult to stop.  Feel free to ignore these
messages as inappropriate, and I will do what I can to fix the
problem...

At the same time, send a note to the offender saying you believe that
his mail is out of line, and will not be considered toward defining
rough consensus (especially if there is no technical point within)

Also send a note to your ADs informing them what is going on, so that
when you call consensus over Mr. Beligerant, it is known why...

Basically if you marginalize people hindering the process, they learn
quickly how to effectively move the process, or get mowed over and
ignored...

Bill
(my two cents)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Tom-PT Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:36 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Question for the list

If you are using Mailman, you have the option of requiring postings from
the
offending participants to obtain your approval before going forward to
the
list.  This, of course, is a last resort -- I expect it would be very
difficult to justify such an action without a well-defined set of
criteria
to say which messages would get through.

This thought suggests something to me: you gain consensus on your list
for
the acceptable limits of discourse.  You could possibly impose the
penalty
of a day's suspension for violation of the rules, with increasing
durations
for further violations.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Question for the list

experiencing just such an attack - it has now reached the stage that it
has

My question is this - how do other chairs handle that?  Is there any
special
technique.  Here's what we've done so far. 

1. Asked the group on the list to "back off" (in a nice way) 
2. Talked privately to members of the group at an IETF meeting asking
the
same thing 
3.  Talked privately to try and determine what is the issue. 

One other point, they seem to attack one person in particular.  However,
in
checking back on the list, other unlucky souls have received equal
emphasis.

I know this goes on all the time - however, this one is getting a bit
out of
hand.  So, I'm looking for some sage advice.  thanks in advance.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:28:49 -0700

Bill,

It may be possible to do this under IETF rules. Check RFC 2418.

        jak