I really don't want to participate in a flame-war about "moderation", but Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As long as WG chairs are trusted to determine WG consensus, I don't > see why they can't determine if a message is obviously irrelevant to > the tasks for which a WG was created. It is a bad idea to assign to the same person the tasks of limiting _input_ to a discussion and determining the _output_ of a discussion. We should _try_ to move away from any discussion of whether our leaders are "trustworthy", and instead discuss whether the _structures_ in place are designed correctly to achieve our purposes. -- John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Melinda Shore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Michael Richardson
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) John Leslie
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Michael Richardson
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James P. Salsman
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Thomas Narten
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Dave Crocker
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Vernon Schryver
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) James M Galvin
- rule-based moderation (was Re: Mail sent t... James P. Salsman
- Re: Mail sent to midcom (fwd) Keith Moore