Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #600
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, July 9 2001             Volume 01 : Number 600

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 08:06:28 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hey Joop,

Explain to me why everyone is so quiet regarding the Review TF nominations.
Please

Eric

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear Mr Chair and Mr Alt-chair of the GA,
>
> The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> MOTION

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 13:18:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Oh, simple answer to that.  Everyone is all wrapped up in
monitor rules, suspensions, etc., that have nothing whatever
to do with the GA actually doing something. This demonstrates
the value of having these sublists (even though WXW continues
to insist on cluttering [email-masked] with this stuff) -- all of that,
if not indeed done off-list entirely, could at least be pushed off to
ga-rules, and let the battle rage on there, thus to eliminate the
nuisance and distraction from real work (?) in [email-masked].

Bill Lovell

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Hey Joop,
>
> Explain to me why everyone is so quiet regarding the Review TF nominations.
> Please
>
> Eric
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Dear Mr Chair and Mr Alt-chair of the GA,
> >
> > The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> > subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> > MOTION
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 14:10:54 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] back (n/t)

- --
R O E L A N D   M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:54:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Bill and all assembly members,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> Oh, simple answer to that.  Everyone is all wrapped up in
> monitor rules, suspensions, etc., that have nothing whatever
> to do with the GA actually doing something.

  I agree with you that doing something is much preferable than
continuing arguing about a perceived or real problem.  The current
set of "Rules" were created educated, without the legitimate approval
of the participants in which they effect or may effect.  As such or as
a result the breeding of suspicion shall continue and likely increase.
But if something is actually DONE about correct this problem, the
GA will be mired down with WXW type of nuisance posts of one
flavor or another...

> This demonstrates
> the value of having these sublists (even though WXW continues
> to insist on cluttering [email-masked] with this stuff) -- all of that,
> if not indeed done off-list entirely, could at least be pushed off to
> ga-rules, and let the battle rage on there, thus to eliminate the
> nuisance and distraction from real work (?) in [email-masked].
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Hey Joop,
> >
> > Explain to me why everyone is so quiet regarding the Review TF nominations.
> > Please
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mr Chair and Mr Alt-chair of the GA,
> > >
> > > The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
> > > subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> > > MOTION
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:10:58 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections/Why are they ignored

At 08:02 8/07/2001 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>Dear Members,
>
>Why is this being so widely ignored?

The candidates do not want to campaign.
The GA members are not questioning the candidates.

You may recall that when I tried to ask questions, I was threatened with 
abusive postings.
Elections and personal attacks are closely related, as you may have found out.

Perhaps this is the reason why candidates are not encouraged to campaign.

As far as questions are concerned, yes, I have one for Roberto:
You stated that you will be on the task force to represent the GA opinion.
Yet, as your personal preference you mentioned an Individuals' constituency 
that looks more like the @large users than like a constituency of DNS 
stakeholders.

Can you please explain?

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.democracy.org.nz/idno/)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:03:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially express the 
sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA list that we must 
immediately act to correct the problem.     

I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in the last 
month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA list by 62 
individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all the posts.   

Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the number 
of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and noted that 
all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting limit on several 
occasions.  

8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10) 
7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of 
violation -- (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)  
4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (7,8,10,6)
4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (7,8,7,13)
3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (8,7,8)
2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (8,6)

It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints forwarded 
to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If this is the case, 
then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that excessive postings are a 
major part of our problem with this list.

Let us consider what our list would have been like if these individuals were 
on holiday during the last month.  We would have received 502 posts from 56 
people spread over 31 days (an average of one post per individual about every 
3-4 days).

I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might best be 
served by further restricting the number of allowable daily postings in order 
to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list 
would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.  

It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your comments 
on this possible solution.

 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:24:42 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Two posts a day is great for "hit and run."  Personally, I don't have 
time to spend taking notes on posts on the GA list and waiting for 
the end of the day to determine whether I should post or not, and 
then making a composite for a reply to more than one thread.  If 
that's the case, I'll go back to lurking status, which is close to 
where I am now anyway.

I think you're taking it too far, Danny.  

Leah

On 8 Jul 2001, at 22:03, [email-masked] wrote:

> Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially
> express the sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA
> list that we must immediately act to correct the problem.     
> 
> I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in
> the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the
> main GA list by 62 individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all
> the posts.   
> 
> Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the
> number of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and
> noted that all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting
> limit on several occasions.  
> 
> 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on
> days of violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10) 7 violations -- 102 posts
> total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of violation --
> (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)  4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker --
> daily posts on days of violation -- (7,8,10,6) 4 violations --  69
> posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of violation --
> (7,8,7,13) 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily
> posts on days of violation -- (8,7,8) 2 violations --  66 posts total
> -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of violation -- (8,6)
> 
> It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints
> forwarded to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If
> this is the case, then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that
> excessive postings are a major part of our problem with this list.
> 
> Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
> individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have
> received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average of
> one post per individual about every 3-4 days).
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might
> best be served by further restricting the number of allowable daily
> postings in order to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of
> two posts per day per list would be sensible, if vigorously enforced
> by our list monitors.  
> 
> It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your
> comments on this possible solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:17:25 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello L,

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 7:24:42 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> Two posts a day is great for "hit and run."  Personally, I don't have 
> time to spend taking notes on posts on the GA list and waiting for 
> the end of the day to determine whether I should post or not, and 
> then making a composite for a reply to more than one thread.  If 
> that's the case, I'll go back to lurking status, which is close to 
> where I am now anyway.

> I think you're taking it too far, Danny.  

It's so outrageous a suggestion that it doesn't even warrant
discussion.

Let's also look at his little list:

8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on days of
violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10)

I won't comment here, clear abuser.  But I'm sure most don't even see
his posts.

4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of
violation -- (7,8,7,13)

Only 4 days, but at least two of them are clearly abusive.  Still, not
really significant.

4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker -- daily posts on days of
violation -- (7,8,10,6)

4 days, 1 of them really abusive, and he's curbed his posting habits
already.

7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of 
violation -- (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)  
3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days of
violation -- (8,7,8)
2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of 
violation -- (8,6)

The rest of these are insignificant.  1-2 posts over the limit on a
small number of days.

The lack of additional posts on those days would have amount to
exactly 21 less posts over a 1 month period.  Actually, what it
probably would have amounted to is nothing, since they probably would
have just waited until after midnight on those days and used one of
their posts for that day.  Further, these counts are calendar days
based on DNSO time zones, not on the poster's actual time zone, which
gives much different results, and is in fact the standard that is
applied.

Finally, taking the totals for the month, and dividing them out you
get:

Jeff Williams : 130 posts / 30 days = 4.3 posts per day average
William Walsh : 102 posts / 30 days = 3.4 posts per day average
Eric Dierker : 92 posts / 30 days = 3.1 posts per day average
Jim Fleming : 69 posts / 30 days = 2.3 posts per day average
Patrick Corliss : 60 posts / 30 days = 2 posts per day average
Jefsey Morfin : 66 posts / 30 days = 2.2 posts per day average

So let's not blow things out of proportion and adopt Draconian
solutions.

Will the next suggestion require the Chair to approve every post?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 23:23:37 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

[email-masked] wrote:

> I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in the last
> month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA list by 62
> individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all the posts.

That sort of thing is common in various distributions. In linguistics, the
curve for word frequency is called Zipf's Law. The top two words in English
are 'the' and 'of' at 6% and 3% of total words. The top dozen or so cover half
the total words used. Same for character frequency, ' ' alone is about 14%, 
distribution of incomes (Pareto's Law, small part of population gets most),
popualation density (millions in cities, empty hinterland), ...

> Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the number
> of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and noted that
> all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting limit on several
> occasions.
> 
> 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams ...
> 7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh ...
> 4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker ...
> 4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming ...
> 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss ...
> 2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin ...
> 
> ... Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list
> would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.

No. That's absurd. So X starts a thread, I reply, Y chimes in and I comment.
Then X comments on my reply. You expect me to shut up then because I've had
my two post limit? Get serious. I'm going to answer.

For that matter, I'd be quite unlikely to respect a 5-post limit in a lively
thread.

If the thread does not interest you, skip it. If you consider X, Y or me an
utter idiot, ignore them.

> It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your comments
> on this possible solution.

Methinks the "solution" sucks.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 20:45:46 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

These results do not surprise me, although, unless you analyzed his
posts for content, you seem to have forgotten that Patrick Corliss
is the Alternate Chair and has official business to carry out that is
not to be counted in that daily limit.

I would also suggest, as I did to Patrick regarding abusive conduct,
that no sysem will work unless it is implemented and enforced.
Excluding the entry for Patrick, you have shown 25 violations,
about which, so far as we can tell, nothing was done.  There is
no point in changing any rule until it is shown that the existing
rule, when actually enforced, does not work.

Limitations are important, since otherwise (with such a prolific 5),
those who would like to become other than lurkers will continue
to see such dense banks of fog that they will think their bit would
never be seen anyway.  These dense fog banks strongly inhibit
there being any input from anyone else, and that is not a way to
reach out to the Internet community.

With respect to complaints to monitors for excessive posting, the
daily limit rule should be enforced automatically.  The person so
suspended could go use ga-full to scream and holler about rights
of free speech and all that -- of course overlooking the fact that
excessive posting in itself inhibits the right of free speech of others..

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially express the
> sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA list that we must
> immediately act to correct the problem.
>
> I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in the last
> month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA list by 62
> individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all the posts.
>
> Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the number
> of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and noted that
> all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting limit on several
> occasions.
>
> 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10)
> 7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of
> violation -- (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)
> 4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,10,6)
> 4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,7,13)
> 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,7,8)
> 2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,6)
>
> It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints forwarded
> to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If this is the case,
> then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that excessive postings are a
> major part of our problem with this list.
>
> Let us consider what our list would have been like if these individuals were
> on holiday during the last month.  We would have received 502 posts from 56
> people spread over 31 days (an average of one post per individual about every
> 3-4 days).
>
> I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might best be
> served by further restricting the number of allowable daily postings in order
> to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list
> would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.
>
> It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your comments
> on this possible solution.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 22:49:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Leah and all assembly members,

  Good point.  I am in agreement with Leah here.  And to me anyway,
this is one of the things that shows that the illegitimate rules are
detrimental to discussion and debate, as well as not applicable
to this assembly.

L Gallegos wrote:

> Two posts a day is great for "hit and run."  Personally, I don't have
> time to spend taking notes on posts on the GA list and waiting for
> the end of the day to determine whether I should post or not, and
> then making a composite for a reply to more than one thread.  If
> that's the case, I'll go back to lurking status, which is close to
> where I am now anyway.
>
> I think you're taking it too far, Danny.
>
> Leah
>
> On 8 Jul 2001, at 22:03, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially
> > express the sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA
> > list that we must immediately act to correct the problem.
> >
> > I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in
> > the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the
> > main GA list by 62 individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all
> > the posts.
> >
> > Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the
> > number of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and
> > noted that all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting
> > limit on several occasions.
> >
> > 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on
> > days of violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10) 7 violations -- 102 posts
> > total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of violation --
> > (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)  4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker --
> > daily posts on days of violation -- (7,8,10,6) 4 violations --  69
> > posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of violation --
> > (7,8,7,13) 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily
> > posts on days of violation -- (8,7,8) 2 violations --  66 posts total
> > -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of violation -- (8,6)
> >
> > It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints
> > forwarded to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If
> > this is the case, then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that
> > excessive postings are a major part of our problem with this list.
> >
> > Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
> > individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have
> > received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average of
> > one post per individual about every 3-4 days).
> >
> > I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might
> > best be served by further restricting the number of allowable daily
> > postings in order to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of
> > two posts per day per list would be sensible, if vigorously enforced
> > by our list monitors.
> >
> > It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your
> > comments on this possible solution.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:07:06 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Question to Jeff Williams

Dear Jefsey,

You have argued that the rules of this Assembly are "illegitimate".   Is it 
your intention to continue violating the rules of this Assembly?  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:13:04 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello William,

Sunday, July 08, 2001, 8:45:46 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> I would also suggest, as I did to Patrick regarding abusive conduct,
> that no sysem will work unless it is implemented and enforced.
> Excluding the entry for Patrick, you have shown 25 violations,
> about which, so far as we can tell, nothing was done.  There is
> no point in changing any rule until it is shown that the existing
> rule, when actually enforced, does not work.

And you ignore that almost ALL of those are only 1 or 2 over the
limit, and that when the total posts are counted and looked at, the
averages are around HALF of the daily posting limit overall.

> never be seen anyway.  These dense fog banks strongly inhibit
> there being any input from anyone else, and that is not a way to
> reach out to the Internet community.

Oh yes, this is so applicable to a situation of a small number of 1-2
post violations.

Please, the absence of ~20 messages over a period of a month would not
have made one iota of difference.

Like Danny's, your comments lack a sense of perspective.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might best be
> served by further restricting the number of allowable daily postings in order
> to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list
> would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.

How would the interests of a "bottom-up consensus organization" be served
by further stifling conversation?

Remember, the most effective form of governance is a dictatorship.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:32:22 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hi Danny

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:03:42 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:

> 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days
> of violation -- (8,7,8)

We had this before, Danny, and I spent hours proving to somebody
that the time difference in Australia is such that excess postings may
be easily misjudged.  One of the things that takes the List Monitors time
is substantiating the allegations, discussing the procedures, agreeing
with each other and forming a consensus.

It's like a mini-GA and you know how hard that can be.

And I do wish you would stop making these pronouncements from "on high".
Why don't you just complaint to [ga-abuse] like everybody else?  Or even set
a good example by posting to the [ga-rules] mailing list?

That you (and others) don't, CAUSES much of the problem with noise.

The easiest way to solve the process is to go back to a systems of one list
monitor.  William X. Walsh seems to be happy with the idea so I suppose
we just need your approval and it's done.  But I like the two incumbents
and would leave them alone to do their work.

You also must remember that they have other things to do in their life.

> It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints
> forwarded to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If
> this is the case, then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that
> excessive postings are a major part of our problem with this list.

Danny, you really do leave yourself wide open sometimes.  All you need
to do is check your facts first.  And that should be easy if you are a
member of [ga-abuse] yourself -- which, as far as I can tell, you are.

Excessive postings are a problem because *proving it* is a lot of work.
I'm sure you realise that which is why you didn't go the extra step and
do the calculations properly -- by time zones.

Including me in your list (without consultation) might seem like a fair
thing.  In fact, it just undermines your case if I prove you wrong.

Before you can reduce the limit to two, you must enforce the existing
limit first.  I like the idea of being flexible but see your idea as
overkill.

Remember, they can just do what Jefsey suggested.  Post five on
one list.  When your credit runs out, switch to another, etc.  And
there's nothing we can do to stop that sort of misbehaviour.

If you want to make the system work, you can't leave loopholes.

Please provide me with details.  I will see if can rebut your allegations.

Sheesh, Danny !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:57:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

This is far from your usually decent logic.  For some reason you are trying to
force a result and then looking for some logic to back it up.  There is no reason
in this day and age to count number of posts it simply has no consequence.
Remember in school how the teacher told you how many pages your paper was to be,
but then went on to say more thoroughly basically how many characters per page.

The single most productive group in the history of the GA was the WG-Review.  I
speak of out put relative to time.  No posting limits, no monitor.  I further
note that you pick a time period in which you were completely absent - per your
logic you would have been a better contributor to the list than Corliss, who was
doing your job.  It is just as logical to heap praise on the people who
contribute the most.

What I am really interested in is why you would post to this subject rather than
to issues related to the Task Forces and upcoming NC seat.  By this very post you
are contributing that which you decry.

Sincerely,
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> Joops motion, and his comments regarding ostracism, essentially express the
> sentiment that something is so seriously wrong with our GA list that we must
> immediately act to correct the problem.
>
> I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list in the last
> month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA list by 62
> individuals.   Six people accounted for half of all the posts.
>
> Looking at the archives on a day-by-day basis, I merely totalled the number
> of posts per person on each day (as listed in the archives) and noted that
> all of these six individuals exceeded the daily posting limit on several
> occasions.
>
> 8 violations -- 130 posts total -- Jeff Williams -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (9,6,6,7,6,6,7,10)
> 7 violations -- 102 posts total -- William Walsh --  daily posts on days of
> violation -- (6,6,6,7,6,6,7)
> 4 violations --  92 posts total -- Eric Dierker -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,10,6)
> 4 violations --  69 posts total -- Jim Fleming -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (7,8,7,13)
> 3 violations --  60 posts total -- Patrick Corliss -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,7,8)
> 2 violations --  66 posts total -- Jefsey Morfin -- daily posts on days of
> violation -- (8,6)
>
> It is also reasonable to assume that a great many of the complaints forwarded
> to ga-abuse concern individuals who post prolificly.   If this is the case,
> then it further becomes reasonable to conclude that excessive postings are a
> major part of our problem with this list.
>
> Let us consider what our list would have been like if these individuals were
> on holiday during the last month.  We would have received 502 posts from 56
> people spread over 31 days (an average of one post per individual about every
> 3-4 days).
>
> I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly might best be
> served by further restricting the number of allowable daily postings in order
> to cut down on the "noise".   Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list
> would be sensible, if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.
>
> It is quite evident that we have a problem.  I would appreciate your comments
> on this possible solution.
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:10:02 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lacking Perspective

> Sunday, July 08, 2001, 8:45:46 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > I would also suggest, as I did to Patrick regarding abusive conduct,
> > that no sysem will work unless it is implemented and enforced.
> > Excluding the entry for Patrick, you have shown 25 violations,
> > about which, so far as we can tell, nothing was done.  There is
> > no point in changing any rule until it is shown that the existing
> > rule, when actually enforced, does not work.

On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:13:04 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> And you ignore that almost ALL of those are only 1 or 2 over the
> limit, and that when the total posts are counted and looked at, the
> averages are around HALF of the daily posting limit overall.

No William.  He made his point and you made yours.  Why should Bill
have to say what you want him to say?  Or include what you want him
to include?  You might be Bill too but you are different people.

And you still use emotive words which suggest motivation -- "ignore" --
rather than more scientifically neutral words -- like "omit".  Do you think
people don't notice?  What's the real perspective here?

> > never be seen anyway.  These dense fog banks strongly inhibit
> > there being any input from anyone else, and that is not a way to
> > reach out to the Internet community.
>
> Oh yes, this is so applicable to a situation of a small number of 1-2
> post violations.

We've had this debate before with you taking the opposite viewpoint.  It
occurred when you were suspended for excess postings.  I said the list
monitors should have discretion to allow one or two over the limit on the
odd occasion.  As I remember, you argued that the rules needed to be
enforced down the line as list monitors would abuse their discretation.

A monitor taking that approach would have suspended everybody.
Bill's point was that it didn't happen.  Yours was that it didn't need to.

Both are equally valid points.  They are even supportive of the other.

> Please, the absence of ~20 messages over a period of a month would not
> have made one iota of difference.

No.  But the absence of a high-volume poster altogether would.
It also might have acted as a deterrant for others who abuse us.

> Like Danny's, your comments lack a sense of perspective.

To paraphrase a well-known dishonest argument:
Comments don't lack perspective.  People lack perspective.

The real perspective is that sublists solve the problem !!

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #600
************************