Re: We can halve volume by not allowing nondevelopers to post
Johnie Ingram wrote:
> Though I've always been for openness, frankly this thread has made me
> understand Ian's point. A non-developer has just gotten some of us to
> lose professionalism, swear, and threaten to killfile, in an
> unproductive thread that feeds on itself and shows no signs of ending.
>
> We seem agreed that sending replies in private is a good idea, where
> possible. And if the reply-to settings of the list need changing,
> perhaps the listmasters could be convinced of this -- in private.
>
> Meanwhile we can get back to discussing the alternatives to Ian's
> draconian, but probably effective, solution. PGP sigs, anyone? :-)
<nolurk>
As a nondeveloper, I've been watching this thread with some trepidation.
While I'm willing to accept the community's decision on this, I would hope that
the decision isn't settled because of one incident. Certainly we can be a little
more fair than that!
I also note with irony that, of the two offenders here, one is a developer and one
isn't. Will Craig be a bit more civil when Steve is banned? Time will tell, I
suppose, if we ban nondevelopers, as it will tell what we lose.
Let's punish the instigators here. I would much rather have Steve and Craig
banned than the entire mass of non-developers.
OK, I'll shut up now. One more suggestion: as a compromise, could we possibly
just digest non-developers instead of banning them outright?
</nolurk>
Reply to: