This list has been having regular postings by participants who engage in
bashing one or another group. If you are seriously concerned about actions
that sow discord, look carefully to that pattern, rather than to the few
voices trying to point out the problem with those postings.
>different from criticism . We have only a limited time to organize, before
>Santiago.
>All this writing has already seriously taken energy away from our goal.
Limited time, indeed. That is why it is so strange that your response to
efforts at suggesting focusing on constructive content, rather than on
bashing, is to do more bashing, albeit in the form of a formal ostracism
effort. If you are worried about efficient use of the group's time, this
initiative is a most peculiar way to show it.
My previous note encouraged stopping the bashing and, instead, focusing on
constructive work, for precisely the reasons you list, time and energy.
>Our list should not be yet another political discussion list where the DNS
>wars can rage on. There are two other lists to do that on.
>Crispin's list of "bashings" was carefully extracted from discussion
>initiated by himself, or Mr Crocker.
You did not 'extract' my statements, you changed them, adding your own
interpretation.
>2. reposting of a private message to the list
Joop, you occupy a position of formal authority on this list. Operating
under color of authority carries special burdens on the person in
authority. The note you sent could quite reasonably be viewed as an abuse
of power.
This group has not defined any mechanisms for pursuing complaints, such as
about abuses of authroity. Hence, Kent had no recourse for taking
exception to your not other than to publish it to the list.
>3. crossposting of a list message to another list (the discuss@dnso.org)
>without the author's permission.
I don't know what list of rules or etiquette you are drawing this one from,
but cross-posting is usually considered no more than inefficient. I
suppose that cross-posting from a private list is sometimes considered a
privacy violation, but this list isn't private.
>The fact that I gave him the chance to unsub himself voluntarily is already
>a concession.
You create a demand and then draw a conclusion from a failure to respond to
your demand, considering the failure to be damning? (And, by the way, it
is not even clear what "concession" you think should be drawn from that
failure.)
>It has been clearly announced that this is a moderated list. We have no
1. It is not moderated. Postings are re-sent directly. The term
"moderated" for discussion groups means that postings go through a
moderator who decides whether to forward them.
2. Where has it been announced that the list is moderated? In particular,
where is it in the stable storage, namely the web pages?
I suspect that you have a much more complete and precise sense of the
details for the group and the list -- in your head -- than is written or
than anyone else. That does not make those details valid.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/