--- Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> wrote:
--On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now, and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or goals. some folks think that rules are bad. others think that susan is bad or that merit is bad. some say that rules are ok if the community has visibility and ultimate control.
I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your year's membership. Then go set up your own mail-server and work out your own moderation policies. If you do a better job, you'll win clueful subscribers.
It isn't we don't like NANOG, it's obvious we all do or we wouldn't be here. It's we don't want the clueful folks eliminated. It reduces the S of the list and has little effect on N. There is very little chance someone's going to start a new NOG list and get the quality of folks that're here. Folks have too much time invested here. The question is, as Paul proposed, how can we get the community more visibility into the process of banishment and more control over who is banned? How long are randy and the other cluefolks banned for? (no I don't expect an answer...) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com