I suppose it's easy to feel that way when you're not the one being censored.
As before, you presume much. Randy has rejected articles from me before on the grounds that they were off-topic. Upon reflection, I had to agree w/ him. (And I'm still waiting for Sue to tell me to stop contributing to this thread, on the same basis, and I will agree with her, too.)
Remember, if you wanted to start a nam3dr0pp3rs@ list someplace else and post introductions to it on ietf@ and namedroppers@, noone could stop you.
That's incorrect. The moderator could stop me.
On the grounds that the creation of an alternative mailing list was off-topic? That would be quite a spectacle. Please do it, I'd like to see the results.
Also, it wouldn't matter if I made my own list, because any list I created would not be the official list of the DNSEXT working group.
So your beef is with IETF process (sanctioning restricted forums) rather than with the restrictedness of the forum? You think the IETF has some kind of monopoly on discussions of DNS's fine points and that because of this we ought to continue debating those fine points on other lists, like this one?
I was merely pointing out that the namedroppers list is not exactly the open forum that you purported it to be. I posted a link to a web page (above) in support of this claim. You have not yet refuted anything that is published on that page.
You've got THAT right, at least.
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 12:57:44PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
That's incorrect. The moderator could stop me.
On the grounds that the creation of an alternative mailing list was off-topic? That would be quite a spectacle. Please do it, I'd like to see the results.
I'm quite happy with dns@list.cr.yp.to.
Also, it wouldn't matter if I made my own list, because any list I created would not be the official list of the DNSEXT working group.
So your beef is with IETF process (sanctioning restricted forums) rather than with the restrictedness of the forum? You think the IETF has some kind of monopoly on discussions of DNS's fine points and that because of this we ought to continue debating those fine points on other lists, like this one?
My beef is with the method of moderation practiced on the afforementioned list, as documented at http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html . Selectively discarding, ignoring and/or editing posts from people the list moderator doesn't like, even though they are consistent with the list's charter, does not, to me, fall within the borders of an acceptable or fair method of moderation. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> | GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA http://flounder.net/publickey.html | 38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A
In the immortal words of Adam McKenna (adam-nanog@flounder.net):
Selectively discarding, ignoring and/or editing posts from people the list moderator doesn't like, even though they are consistent with the list's charter, does not, to me, fall within the borders of an acceptable or fair method of moderation.
Bouncing posts from Richard Sexton and Dean Anderson on a list devoted to discussion of DNS issues isn't censorship, it's reponsible list maintenence. Note reply-to. -n ------------------------------------------------------------<memory@blank.org> "`For Shame' isn't history; it's a rant -- another in a seemingly endless parade of dumb books lamenting `the dumbing of America.'" (--David Futrelle) <http://blank.org/memory/>----------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Adam McKenna -
Nathan J . Mehl -
Paul Vixie