On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 09:05:39AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > Osamu Aoki wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2004 at 12:17:07PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > There is a general rule (I don't know where it comes from) that reads > > > similar to "If the number of mails in a thread has exceeded ten (or a > > > screen height) it is already off-topic". Applying this rule to large > > > Debian lists is helpful if you don't read summaries. Anybody can do > > > that. > > > > Thanks for practical suggestion. But will this kind of ML behavior give > > us a good base for consensus? I doubt it. > > Do you think that limiting people to raise their voice and concerns > will give you a good base for consensus?
No, not directly of course. But indirectly, yes by reducing noise level and having in depth discussion per each message. Please read my previous message in which I quoted Ted's message and which you chose not to re-quote. People like Ted can not participate discussion if we continue to operate this way. This is serious problem. What do you think if the democratic parliament is operated only by filibustering and avoiding decision? I think this kind of situation will not be effective. Free speech and freedom of expression in modern society is protected as long as it does not damage or interfere with the fundamental values and it is within accepted rules. You can not run loudspeaker all midnight in front of your house even if you are speaking politics. I know it is quite difficult to set where is our common threshold. But I think it is worth thinking. Please note I have no intention to push some new rule immediately. But I want people to think the scalability of effective ML discussion. If reasonable person like you have resentment, I have to admit this idea may have been a premature timing. But I am sure there will be a time we all need to think some rule. Regards, Osamu
