[odf-discuss] Proposal for Moderation of ODF discussion list

[Lars Noodén]

marbux wrote:
> ...
> In conclusion, I request definition of what is intended by the word
> moderation in the ballot description, that discussion be held after
> sufficient clarification is provided, and that a new ballot be started once
> the clarification and discussion are completed.  Neither I nor anyone else
> knows what they are being asked to vote on.

Messages containing argumentum ad hominem attacks do not get forwarded
to the list.  They are a form of distraction and as such disruptive to
the free flow of ideas and mult-faceted debate.

Here is a good description of what will get filtered out:
	http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Messages *about* open standards and opendocument get through, with a
wide and generous margin for digression.  However, again, disparaging
remarks about individuals will not be accepted, even if sandwhiched in
between pearls.

It is really the only one of the logical fallacies that is problematic.
 The others won't get filtered, but usually meet their demise when
presented with a well documented counter.

As pointed out, moderation is standard practice on most special-purpose
lists.  Since this is an all-volunteer list, it behooves us to keep the
noise as close to zero as is possible.  We are all of us busy.

Regards,
-Lars