At 03:23 AM 04/29/2000 -0600, Danny McPherson wrote:
I was obviously joking about the "disinformation experts" comment, at least to some degree.
That's semi-comforting, at least. ;-)
However, I certainly do agree that it's a good idea to discuss this as you propose at the upcoming NANOG, especially in lieu of recent occurrences.
That is good to know _- I knew you'd agree! :-)
I don't believe some folks realize how much people read into topics discussed on this list, or understand the impact that seemingly simple posts (accusations about Vendor A's broken software, Vendor B's broken hardware, ISP A's broken network, ISP B's poor customer service, ISP C's security practices, etc..) have on these businesses, and more so, the individuals involved, especially since those accusations are often [demonstrated] premature or completely unfounded.
Yes, this is entirely counter-productive. Not that I'm a money-grubbing, stock-sucking bastard, but speaking as a member of the "community", I'm a little spooked by how reckless journalism, and off-hand comments on mailing lists, affect peoples (read: companies) financial futures (this is actually just the tip of the proverbial iceberg). If things/people/processes/architecture/etc. is at fault, then let's discuss it as a community that wishes to propel ourselves into the promising future. Otherwise, let's just demonize everyone whow learns their lesson the old fashioned way -- with failures. I'm really pissed off over this whole issue. - paul