nanog mailing list archives
Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:57:50 +0530
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:36:03 -0800, JC Dill <lists05 () equinephotoart com> wrote:
There are 2 problems with this. 1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
One focus of thsi meeting must be that it should not degenerate into a "let's all bash on the current moderator" argument - that will, ultimately, not be very productive. The issue on nanog is not spam discussions - it is an apparently widely held perception among list members that the current moderation of the list in an attempt to maintain signal to noise ratios is heavy handed. I've seen other lists where their admins have tried this approach - it has, so far, not worked at all on any of the lists that it has been tried on .. and to add to the fun, it tends to generate "uncivil disobedience". Like for example Randy Bush getting his posting rights revoked for cross posting an email about an anycast experiment to nanog and various other operator lists, with the To: header reading, in part - "ops sheep willing to be censored by a non op" <nanog () nanog org> Some would, rightly, say that Randy was wearing a giant "kick me" sign when he posted that - but it has to be pointed out that this sort of reaction is inevitable on mailing lists where the list admin exercises his/her moderation powers beyond a certain extent in an effort to enforce SNR on the list. As spam-l keeps getting cited in this thread, please allow me to point out that spam-l has a set of topics that posters have to prefix to their posts, so that they can be categorized, and either read or not read by list subscribers, who moreover get to decide just what list topics they want to sign up to. Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc. These are all ideas, though - what is needed urgently is for this special meeting not to end up as a repetition of "the moderator is heavy handed", "list members always wander off topic, and we have to head them off somehow", and instead to develop on more productive lines. --srs ps - finally, someone may want to suggest a slight change to point #4 in this slide, linked from the nanog AUP, to take into account current list (non) membership: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/labovit/sld013.htm
Current thread:
- Re: Agenda so far for NANOG33 Susan Harris (Jan 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Agenda so far for NANOG33 Malayter, Christopher (Jan 03)
- Sunday evening meeting Susan Harris (Jan 03)
- Re: Sunday evening meeting Bill Nash (Jan 03)
- Message not available
- Proposed list charter/AUP change? Bill Nash (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Clay Fiske (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? JC Dill (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Steve Atkins (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Jan Bacher (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 04)
- Re: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 04)
- Sunday evening meeting Susan Harris (Jan 03)
- RE: Proposed list charter/AUP change? Ejay Hire (Jan 04)