[rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

[Fundiswa Nadia Maseko]

Dear Mike,

Thanks for pointing that out.

You're right that including the previous message makes it much easier to
follow the discussion, especially when several people are replying at the
same time. I'll make sure I keep the quoted text in future replies.

I also think we're getting to a more balanced position. Whether someone
uses AI or not shouldn't be the main issue. What really matters is whether
their contribution is relevant, adds something new, and helps move the
discussion forward.

In the end, the same expectations should apply to everyone. If a
contribution is repetitive or doesn't add value, it should be treated the
same regardless of how it was drafted.

Kind regards,

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko



On Fri, 24 Jul 2026, 14:52 Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

> 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 détente, 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/b59c55d7/attachment.html>