From: Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu

I'm not too worried about enforcability at this point. I think there are two issues here. One is more or less a code of good conduct. The other is what to do when people don't follow the code. At this stage I'd be happy if we could just inform people what acceptable conduct is. We can figure out what to do about people who don't play along later.

I agree, but I'll even go a bit further. When issues like this come up people tend to assume they are all in agreement and talking about the same thing. It's true that in the extreme they probably are. But my guess is that if a sizeable group tried to write down what is and is not acceptable it will become apparent that, again other than the most egregious behavior, agreement isn't as easy as it may've first appeared. I suppose one can stick to codifying only the worst sort of behavior, but that always raises the issue of whether this then implies that other behaviors are acceptable? If 100 messages are unacceptable, then are 99 ok? Can we live with zero tolerance only? etc. I think this all can be resolved with some mere shouting and screaming. But the exercise should also be enlightening: If a group such as this has some difficulty agreeing on the boundaries then surely laying the same out for others clearly, even just as an informatory document, would be worthwhile. How could the community at large have been expected to intuit what we can't easily define? At any rate, it'd be a good start. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD