[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 197

Fri Jul 24 13:13:04 UTC 2026

Dear colleagues,

Mike raises a fair point about including the previous message when replying. However, I was one of the people who only realised later that using the “Reply all” function helps preserve the recipients and maintain greater consistency across the discussion. With several parallel threads covering similar issues, it is also quite easy to lose track of which argument is being answered and where the conversation has moved.

That may explain some of the inconsistent reply practices, even though it does not make them any less frustrating for readers. Clearer guidance on quoting the relevant part of the previous message, keeping the subject line consistent, and consolidating related arguments would probably help everyone, whether or not they use an LLM.

The détente Mike describes seems sensible: reduce unnecessary posting volume, while continuing to assess contributions according to their relevance, distinctiveness, and supporting evidence rather than the tool used to draft them.

As Seun has previously emphasised the importance of mentorship, perhaps mentorship could also be useful here. Some participants may simply need guidance on mailing-list conventions, reply structure, and how to engage effectively without overwhelming the discussion. Who knows, a little guidance may prove more productive than immediately assuming bad faith or moving towards stricter controls.

Regards,

Tshepo

________________________________
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Sent: Friday, 24 July 2026 14:52:39
To: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 197

Send RPD mailing list submissions to
        rpd at afrinic.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        rpd-request at afrinic.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        rpd-owner at afrinic.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Subject: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
      behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Taye Medoye)
   2. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior
      on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)
   3. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
      behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Burns)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:43:34 +0200
From: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net
Subject: [rpd] Subject: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding
        observed behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID:
        <CACXLxYfbnA=Yqs-2PxOKS1zcjwc9kRt4gt4VwzGjK9PBYMwD0w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear colleagues,

Thank you, Mike and Ben. I agree with Lu?s central point that the
discussion risks focusing on the wrong unit of analysis.

The relevant question is not whether a contribution was drafted by a
person, assisted by an LLM, or produced through some degree of automation.
The relevant question is whether it presents a distinct, relevant, and
evidence-based argument. If a message is repetitive, irrelevant,
unsupported, or part of excessive list traffic, that conduct should be
addressed directly. The drafting tool should not become a substitute for
assessing the actual quality and effect of the contribution.

Ben is right that flooding can make a mailing list unusable and discourage
participation. However, describing the activity as a coordinated campaign
by automated bots requires evidence. We should not turn a reasonable
concern about volume into a broader presumption against AI-assisted
participation. Mike?s distinction between the use of LLMs and abuse of the
list is therefore important, although I would go further: rather than
relying only on informal incentives, we should consider improving the
structure through which arguments are received and evaluated.

For example, disputed policies or clauses could be presented in a shared
interface, with arguments for and against them organised clearly. AI could
be used to summarise the discussion, group substantially similar
submissions, identify genuinely new arguments, and connect claims to
supporting evidence. Contributors would remain free to submit arguments,
while classifications and summaries should be visible, explainable, and
open to appeal. That would address repetition and volume without excluding
participants merely because of the tools they use.

There is also a broader governance concern. A process does not remain
genuinely open merely because anyone may technically join a mailing list.
Over time, repeated participation can produce a small, self-selecting group
that controls the accepted language, procedures, and boundaries of
participation. When procedural familiarity is treated as substantive
authority, openness becomes more symbolic than real. This is precisely why
moderation systems must be transparent, contestable, and focused on the
merit of arguments rather than the identity, style, or tools of the
contributor.

The practical objective should therefore be to improve signal, reduce
duplication, and preserve meaningful participation. We can achieve that
through content-based standards, transparent moderation, and better tools
for organising debate. Filtering or gatekeeping people according to whether
they use AI would address the wrong problem and risk narrowing, rather than
protecting, the bottom-up character of the community.

Kind regards,
Taye.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/ae837e65/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:45:17 +0200
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
        behavior        on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID:
        <CABV0QcTJW-OLF9wTeF2FKgzPTYkBRE4JgTOZC6u42RB4Txop5g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your clarification.

I think there is an important distinction between using AI to help draft a
message and using automation to flood a mailing list. The issue, in my
view, is not AI itself, but the conduct. If someone is repeatedly posting
the same or slightly reworded messages, that should be addressed regardless
of how those messages were written.

At the same time, I believe we should be careful not to assume coordination
or automation without clear evidence. If there are concerns, it is only
fair that the people involved have an opportunity to respond before
conclusions are reached.

Going forward, I think it would help to have clearer guidance on acceptable
posting behaviour. That would make moderation more transparent and
consistent, while still allowing people to use new tools responsibly.

The goal should be to keep the mailing list useful and focused on technical
discussions, without discouraging genuine participation simply because
someone used AI to organise or improve their thoughts.

Kind regards,
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/cf1d47b2/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:52:23 -0400
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
To: "'Fundiswa Nadia Maseko'" <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>,
        <rpd at afrinic.net>
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
        behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID: <03d501dd1b6b$46002c50$d20084f0$@iptrading.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

How come you guys never include the previous post in your replies?

It seems fairly consistent and is unhelpful in my view, especially with top-posting.

I think we may have reached a workable d?tente, with LLMs reducing posting volume and the list not disregarding the arguments they make.

No side has the incentive to destroy the workability of the list.

Regards,
Mike

From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:45 AM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your clarification.

I think there is an important distinction between using AI to help draft a message and using automation to flood a mailing list. The issue, in my view, is not AI itself, but the conduct. If someone is repeatedly posting the same or slightly reworded messages, that should be addressed regardless of how those messages were written.

At the same time, I believe we should be careful not to assume coordination or automation without clear evidence. If there are concerns, it is only fair that the people involved have an opportunity to respond before conclusions are reached.

Going forward, I think it would help to have clearer guidance on acceptable posting behaviour. That would make moderation more transparent and consistent, while still allowing people to use new tools responsibly.

The goal should be to keep the mailing list useful and focused on technical discussions, without discouraging genuine participation simply because someone used AI to organise or improve their thoughts.

Kind regards,

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/f3eac90f/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

------------------------------

End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 197
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/1fabc4eb/attachment-0001.html>