In the following post, I cover the following issues: 1) General problems with the proposal with regards to the Social Contract. 2) An interpretation of the parts of the Social Contract I think are relevant. 3) Example ill effects of the proposal on the Debian Project. 4) Some technical problems with the e-mail's wording.
Regards, Matthew RT Hall Debian User Since 1998 Mr. Aoki, This concept you have proposed horrifies to me. I hope you are trolling. If so, IHBT (I Have Been Trolled). If not, then please consider some objections I have enumerated below. First, why should some be allowed to have more speech that others? Quoting from a slightly reformatted version of directive (3) of the Debian Social Contract: 3. We Won't Hide Problems -- We will keep our entire bug-report database open for public view at all times. Reports that users file on-line will immediately become visible to others. Being a brief and general document, I believe it is wisest to interpret the Debian Social Contract with an expansive and open paradigm. Applying my open interpretation methodology leads me to extending directive (3) to imply that discussion of issues in Debian should not be curtailed in the manner your post implies. Furthermore, depending on the way you interpret the Social's Contract's statments that users are a priority, limiting their speech would apparently contravene this concept by putting users' concerns in a place secondary to some logistical mailing list concern. I am not sure of a more diplomatic and sensible way to say that this seems like a Bad Thing. Also, the project will suffer under such a rule. If I am prohibited from posting more than five (5) posts per day to the debian-sparc list and my advice is useful (a gracious and possibly unaccurate assumption being used for the sake of argument), then the community would be losing my valuable assistance (*chuckle*). Also, assuming that the foregoing arguments are declared null and void, I have some technical problems with your e-mail: 1) You failed to enumerate either general or specific advantages and disadvantages of this policy. 2) You failed to establish a clear and convincing need for this policy that could justify why such a Draconian measure should be implemented. 3) You failed to explain why some users and/or developers and/or leaders should be given special exemptions from a global policy. 4) Please do not abbreviate things with acronyms you have not defined. --- Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Someone suggested me to post here :-) (I am not subscribed) > > Here is my rewote message with a bit more thought: > > We all know we waste too much time on ML discussing and reading many > postings. We must have some rule for ML to improve this situation. > > I think limiting a number of post per user (per ML) will help reduce > noise in our discussion on ML. Perticulary -devel, -legal, ... I > think > this limit can be purely honor system initially. > > This is very funtamental proposal and may have long lasting strong > impact on the effectiveness of our operation if this becomes enforced > rule later. Although there may be some negatives associated with this > kind of protocol, I think benefits outweigh negatives. > > I am sure some people have concern. If so, can we start establishing > publically agreeed guideline for the limit of posting per day, at > least? > I think 5 posts per user per list is a good start. (I wanted to say > 3 > but said 5 to give enough safety margin.) What do other DDs think > about > this? > > Osamu > > PS: Of course some people should be exempted like IETF chair. For > Debian, I think, this chair positions belong to DPL and his > delegates. > (DPL, RM, ftp-master, DAM, ...) Oh, listmasters have already > enforcing > power but it is rarely used.
