RE: NANOG Changes

[Steve Gibbard <scg () gibbard org>]

It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for
the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the
nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to).

I am also speaking only for myself on this.

I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been
created before urging that this discussion move there.  Since it sounds
like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the
discussion.

-Steve

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Michel Py wrote:

> > Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform
> > community accepting responsibility for provisional
> > moderation (a form of interim governance),
>
> So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted
> with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something
> happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or
> mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of
> the nanog-reform community.
>
>
> > Perception isn't *actually* reality,
>
> [for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a
> hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
>
> I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the
> context I wrote it:
>
> > but in politics (which this is) the difference between
> > perception and reality is just not worth discussing.
>
>
> For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call
> this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the
> nanog-reform community can be found in two places:
>
> 1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/
>
> > List Administration Group
> > Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself,
> > with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic.
> > Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where
> > that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration
> > group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list
> > administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow
> > policies set by the board. They should be people with an
> > understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic
> > and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer
> > discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is
> > really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken.
> > There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions
>
> 2.
> http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
>
> > 7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection
> > The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG
> > mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2).
> > 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered
> > and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
>
>
> > William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the
> > bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate.
> > It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor
> > (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary).
>
> Being one of the "bylaws drafters" I agree with this.
>
> Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gibbard                           scg () gibbard org
+1 415 717-7842 (cell)                  http://www.gibbard.org/~scg
+1 510 528-1035 (home)