Re: recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Fred Heutte wrote:
> Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then
> proposing artificial self-serving "compromises" is one of the oldest
> games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the
> invention of Usenet.  At the risk of playing a small role in this
> instance, as a longtime lurker I simply point out the predictable
> failure pattern here.

Please join us on NANOG-futures than and help either flame, or come up
with something to move us forward.
:)

        Gadi.

> Fred
>
> ----------------
> > Basically, there is a crowd that says only network related stuff, say,
> > trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them alone) would be interested
> > in, is on topic.
> >
> > Others say there are other issues which are oprations related and
> > of interest to them. We are split.
> >
> > A compromise has now been suggested (by me). The only thing both sides
> > agree on is that in fact, the replies and flame wars on what is on topic
> > or isn't, and who should speak of what, are disruptive.
> >
> > Thus, the compromise idea is that for now and for a predetermined period
> > of time, we start with one small change. Debugging is done one step at a
> > time rather than in earthshattering moves.
> >
> > How about we, for now, only change one thing about NANOG - the specific
> > off topic posts that tell others to be quiet, or that they are
> > off-topic will be disallowed. This is really a concensus and a good way to
> > start making progress rather than escalating a conflict between people
> > who just want to get things done and see the NANOG community as a home.
> >
> > I believe it's a good temporary solution which will take us ahead, to
> > measure how things go, as well as be able to find out what we all agree
> > on afterwards. As well as increase the value of the list almost
> > immediately.
> >
> > This re-cap is from my perspective, naturally. We can keep arguing over
> > who said what or what's on or off topic forever. Consolidating on what we
> > all agree would be a change for the better and starting there sounds like
> > a good idea to me.
> >
> > Solving this in a civil fashion just became so much more attractive.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >     Gadi.