At 5:15 Uhr +0100 16.12.1999, David Maxwell wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 10:54:17PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> May I ask that everyone stop responding to Mr. Woods? Simply because
>> he's got boundless energy to post inane replies is no reason for us to
>> follow him down the vortex.

Boy, is this making me angry.

>Frankly, no. You may not ask. Without ranting too much, the Internet
>is very anti-censorship.
>
>If you choose not to reply, that's your business.
>If you choose to killfile some person or thread, that's your business.
>(I still maintain my opinion that that is a way of avoiding an
>	issue though.)

Thanks, David. STRONGLY seconded.

I have read info-cvs for the last two years or so, sort of being the
one-eyed among the blind wrt. configuration management at work. There was a
lot to learn. And yes, I do read Greg's mails when I have time. And I still
learn from them. And I am not entirely sure all of the people who have
joined in the current pissing contest deliver more content.

>A thread only stays alive as long as (at least) two people are going
>back and forth. If there was nothing worth discussing, then no one
>would reply. (And, I've not often seen people follow up their own
>posts in a non-sensical way very often.)
>
>A more valuable approach (IMHO) is to figure out a true conclusion
>to the issue.

[...]

>I try to tell people when I'm wearing my 'advocacy' hat that
>the NetBSD mailing-lists have a significant advantage over other
>Open Source projects I've looked in on. Part of that is in being
>friendly, and receptive, trying to get straight to the point,
>and resolving conflicts (personal, not CVS ;-) as best we can.

Among the less valuable NetBSD traditions is the "Yes, we know better. Yes,
you may try and find out how and why. No, we don't care to show you /
document / educate.".

	hauke


--
"It's never straight up and down"     (DEVO)