On 21 January 2016 at 22:24, Ronald Chmara <rona...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Peter Lind <peter.e.l...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 21 January 2016 at 21:53, Ronald Chmara <rona...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Flyingmana <flyingm...@googlemail.com > > > >> wrote: > >> > Is there any way to abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC? > Snip_> > >> An RFC being used primarily for ongoing debate/argument/trolling > >> purposes could live indefinitely, generating hundreds, or thousands, > >> of messages, and changesets/PR's, and list churn, in the name of > >> "making sure an issue is adequately discussed and resolved". > >> Even as individual trolls, marks, and sockpuppets were knocked down, > >> new ones could pick up the mantle of "but we're discussing important > >> things, here!", and continue the loop... > Snip_> > > This thread being about withdrawn/re-proposed RFCs, how is that comment > > relevant? > > The relevance is in ways to "abuse the taking over of an withdrawn RFC". > > Ahhh good point, missed that. > > Seeing as anyone wanting to debate/argument/troll indefinitely can > > do so using their own RFC - > > Creating a new RFC has a higher barrier to entry, requiring additional > effort. > > If your aim is to clutter the mailing list indefinitely, that's really not going to get in your way. > > or, for that matter, without an RFC. > > I would suggest that random email trolling does not have the same > audience, impact, or formal trappings of a public RFC process. > > Random email trolling, no. But then again, random email trolling is not really what we're talking about, is it? Plus, it's a mailing list, not a forum. The default is that you follow every thread, and have to actively mute them. Email trolling by splitting off of threads would actually be more effective than keeping to one RFC thread - not less effective. Regards Peter -- <hype> WWW: plphp.dk / plind.dk CV: careers.stackoverflow.com/peterlind LinkedIn: plind Twitter: kafe15 </hype>
