31 Oct
2013
31 Oct
'13
5:38 p.m.
On Thursday 31 October 2013 12:25:30 Robin Gareus wrote:
On 10/31/2013 04:19 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
[..]
Of course... ~;-)
Have the lists history been mined to see how many
"valuable" users
violate this proposed policy one some days? Perhaps they go a week and
then have 20 posts in one day and then go another week?
Mined, no. The problem here is the definition of 'valuable'.
I did elaborated a bit more on this when addressing the consortium about
this:
"I've checked some random samples and found that no reasonable[...]
discussion on the LA lists in the last 2 years required more than 5
posts per user per day."
Now that's still somewhat subjective.
I don't think of myself as an abuser but I get a vague feeling that there may
have been a day here and there where I would have run up against these
limits.
If I get the energy and some spare time, I may try and run a little script
against a list history and see what I can discover.
It does not worry me too much if I bump into the limit occasionally as I don't
think what I contribute iss all that urgent ever but I would hate to see some
people I look forward to reading bump into it.
The current settings are rather conservative. With these, only four
persons would have received warnings (two of them repeatedly) in the
last two years, and only one would have been temporarily banned (also
more than once).
Anyway we intentionally chose a short ban time (6h). The idea is not to
snub or censor. Just to let things calm down a bit.
None of the persons who'd have triggered the warning are high-profile
developers or major contributors to linux audio software architecture or
ecosystem.
ciao,
robin
all the best,
drew