Subject: Re: datapoint on large mailing lists

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:36:23 -0500

Actually, we have a somewhat small list and during a recent flamewar I had 
over 500 in three days - and that was only around 4 people.  I sort of 
felt sorry for the "observers".  I worry they will drop off in self 
defense.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 15:27:43 -0800

I've been watching that discussion deteriorate over the last few days. The
volume of the postings has been getting burdensome, but the problem is really
that the level of discourse isn't really producing any forward progress. If the
volume was high but the discourse quality also high, then it would be less of a
problem.

The discourse quality deteroriation is related to some of the issues that were
brought up in a separate thread: people sticking to a fixed position and
defending it without feeling the need for compromising to move forward on a
design for example. Email is jut not a good medium for resolving conflicts.
Having the WG chairs post a summary of the fixed positions and asking for
discussion to cease helps sometimes. If it doesn't then ejecting the topic (if
possible) from the WG and the posters (if they continue to ignore the WG chairs)
if necessary, following proper procedure to notify the offending parties so they
have an opportunity to clean up their act of course.

                jak

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:53:32 -0500

At 06:27 PM 11/1/02, James Kempf wrote:
>I've been watching that discussion deteriorate over the last few days.

I agree that the discussion has been deteriorating.  Some sub-threads
have actually degenerated nearly to the point of name-calling.  I find
it best to deal with those sorts of situations off-line, though,
rather than publicly arguing with people about whether their posts
are offensive.

>If it doesn't then ejecting the topic (if
>possible) from the WG...

In this particular case, the topic is one of the most pressing and
controversial issues facing the IPv6 WG (and, in fact, one of the more
important issues facing much of the IETF), so it would be unwise to
eject discussion of it from the IPv6 WG mailing list...

Margaret

---

From: Frank Kastenholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:26:53 -0500

>design for example. Email is jut not a good medium for resolving conflicts.

Perhaps others here recall the reason we have IETF meetings?
(Free clue, it's not so that people can make useless presentations
about their High School Science Project.)

Resident Grump