Re: [ADMINISTRIVIA] Re: time for a new list?

[Phil Howard <phil () whistler intur net>]

Edward S. Marshall wrote:

> This has already been tried (I believe someone created the
> "offtopic-bullshit" list at one point for inet-access), and just doesn't
> work; the people involved -don't use it-, and moderating a forum like
> NANOG would reduce the speed at which urgent operational messages would go
> out (before you say "make an exception list for those with clue", think
> about who decides who gets on that "clue list", and how people are removed
> from it). And this is a operator's list; you should expect a certain
> minimum of discussion of operations-related issues.

You say it has been tried, but but then your example is of something
entirely different.  So I assert that it has NOT been tried.  Should
I propose it again so you can really read it this time?  I proposed
a web based FORUM ... not a mailing list.

I did mention in my own posting that I would not join if it were a
mailing list.  Perhaps the "offtopic-bullshit" list for inet-access
failed because lots of people, maybe the majority, feel as I do, that
a high volume discussion does not belong in a mailbox.

The reason I proposed it is to help keep NANOG un-moderated.  I do agree
that NANOG needs to remain un-moderated.  I don't want to see any sort of
process of having to decide who can and who cannot post to NANOG, either.
I don't suggest that all discussion be rejected from the mailing list.
But a separate FORUM would at least be a place where people can divert
to carry out additional conversations, especially those things that are
of interest to many members of NANOG, but not of interest to all.


> Personally, NANOG's signal-to-noise ratio is still incredibly low compared
> to most lists I'm on. Allow me to voice my vote for leaving things the way
> they are: open posting for those who have actually worked out how to
> subscribe to the posting list.

I'm not suggesting that point be changed.  My proposal was to help ensure
that it can remain this way.


> The one suggestion I'd make would be starting to be a little more
> aggressive about letting people know that their messages are offtopic (via
> Merit listadmins or appointed watchdogs), and clamping down on repeat
> offenders (by removal of posting priviledges). Self-moderation via
> consequences, vs. enforced moderation.

This may not be necessary if we have an area for diversion.  All that needs
to be said when a thread on the mailing list gets too far off base is
"take it over to the forum".  Then if someone refuses to do that they can
have their posting revoked.

-- 
 --    *-----------------------------*      Phil Howard KA9WGN       *    --
  --   | Inturnet, Inc.              | Director of Internet Services |   --
   --  | Business Internet Solutions |       eng at intur.net        |  --
    -- *-----------------------------*      philh at intur.net       * --