On Thursday 31 October 2013 12:25:30 Robin Gareus wrote: > On 10/31/2013 04:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote: > [..] > > > Have the lists history been mined to see how many "valuable" users > > violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and > > then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week? > > Mined, no. The problem here is the definition of 'valuable'.
Of course... ~;-) > > I did elaborated a bit more on this when addressing the consortium about > this: > > "I've checked some random samples and found that no reasonable[...] > discussion on the LA lists in the last 2 years required more than 5 > posts per user per day." > Now that's still somewhat subjective. I don't think of myself as an abuser but I get a vague feeling that there may have been a day here and there where I would have run up against these limits. If I get the energy and some spare time, I may try and run a little script against a list history and see what I can discover. It does not worry me too much if I bump into the limit occasionally as I don't think what I contribute iss all that urgent ever but I would hate to see some people I look forward to reading bump into it. > > The current settings are rather conservative. With these, only four > persons would have received warnings (two of them repeatedly) in the > last two years, and only one would have been temporarily banned (also > more than once). > > Anyway we intentionally chose a short ban time (6h). The idea is not to > snub or censor. Just to let things calm down a bit. > > None of the persons who'd have triggered the warning are high-profile > developers or major contributors to linux audio software architecture or > ecosystem. > > ciao, > robin all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev