RE: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
The changes that people are discussing have little to do with "what is" and "what isn't" on topic for the NANOG mailing list. What it does have lots to do with is cooperating on examination of the moderation and testing the current long-standing techniques to determine if they need to be re-vamped to reflect sentiments of the community at large. To me, it's not a productive effort to micro-manage(or MERIT) the list via the FAQ. The FAQ is a traditional and historically acceptable method of answering questions that are bound to come up repeatedly as a primary result of new participants from any source. I am interested in discussing the possibilities of self-policing the list. An example would be when I suggested you earn some stripes. I said it. You ignored it. I opened my killfile. You land on it. That's much simpler. Writing complicated rules and creating a Politburo-like atmosphere is in no-ones interest. ObOp: Abuse desks are easily confused with SPAM since the context of abuse desk discussion is typically wrt ...SPAM. The earlier email was more general, IMHO. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan@verisign.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Nash Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 12:51 PM To: Steve Sobol Cc: Susan Harris; nanog@merit.edu; Betty Burke Subject: Proposed list charter/AUP change?
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
Susan keeps on claiming spam is offtopic for Nanog, yet the AUP/Charter/FAQ don't mention spam other than telling us not to ask "I'm being spammed, how can I make it stop?"
If it's flat-out offtopic, no matter what, or if the majority of list members don't want to talk about it on the list, why hasn't the FAQ been updated? Or does Merit just want us to try to guess what is offtopic?
Spam represents a significant percentage of email traffic, and its delivery is increasingly via trojaned dsl/broadband devices. Even spam delivered from quasi-legitimate sources is usually an abuse of resources that some NSP/ISP is paying for. Discussion of functional spam control at the ISP level, I think, is absolutely on topic for a list of this scope. Please note, that I say 'functional'. Random complaints would obviously not fall into this category.
Examples would include: Working enterprise-scale spam filtering (Hourly mail volume measured in thousands) Discussion of edge/core SMTP filtering to curtail spam sources. Policy discussions for handling domestic and international spam sources. Implementation, or requests for implementation, of SPF and similiar controls. Inter-network cooperation for handling large scale issues.
I think this last is pretty much exactly what a list like this is for, be it spam, regional power outages, BGP shenanigans, or widespread squirrel detonations.
- billn
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
The changes that people are discussing have little to do with "what is" and "what isn't" on topic for the NANOG mailing list.
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement. Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing on virtual milk cartons is a problem. Fix it.
What it does have lots to do with is cooperating on examination of the moderation and testing the current long-standing techniques to determine if they need to be re-vamped to reflect sentiments of the community at large.
Cooperation would be nice, yes, but that's a two way street. I should point out that long-standing/traditional are not generally the best. The long-standing technique is distinctly one-way.
I am interested in discussing the possibilities of self-policing the list. An example would be when I suggested you earn some stripes. I said it. You ignored it. I opened my killfile. You land on it. That's much simpler.
And I'm sorry to say it, but that's close minded xenophobia. I'm generally fine to lurk on the list and soak up clue on subjects in which I'm not an expert, and keep tabs on relevant inter-network issues that affect the network operations I'm responsible for. There generally aren't many discussions on this list that involve my particular technical skillset, so I do my part by not contributing noise. Frankly, not posting seems to be the safest option, and you're certainly fostering that notion by treating me like some random newbie with a shiny new cable modem and vanity domain. I certainly don't think my relatively few posts have been other than clear and to the point, or anything less than focused on finding, or contributing, to possible solutions.
Writing complicated rules and creating a Politburo-like atmosphere is in no-ones interest.
This isn't about writing complicated rules. Complicated rules are what I put in my log analyzers. This is about curtailing abuse, and maintaining an effective list. I haven't posted anything so far that requires detailed, multi-section by laws, riders, addendums, references to the previous question, calls for quorum or blood samples and biometrics for authentication of all posts. I've asked for a simple, clear measuring stick of what's valid for posting, and more importantly, what's valid for moderator action. Troubleshooting 101: Identify the problem, find and plan a solution, have a backout plan, then fix it. Going offtopic, but staying germaine to the environment: If my stripes are really of that much interest to you, my background includes enterprise network management tools development, including network inventory design (using flexible SNMP pollers capable of abstracting nonhomogenous vender OID sets), scalable distributed|aggregated syslog analyzers. I've also done complex network troubleshooting from the wire up, many aspects of hands-on network construction, and in-the-field troubleshooting (you know, where the customer stands over your shoulder while you work.) You can even find tools with my prototypical handiwork lurking inside them in places that would likely surprise you. Is that better? Is it safe for me to post now? Or do I need to submit a DNA sample, polygraph, and twelve professional references along with my resume? Just because I don't tout my clue, doesn't mean I don't have one. This list is a tool. I use it, other people use it. I have as much interest in this list being a functional part of my library of resources as anyone else here. If you think I don't belong because I'm not an active poster, I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong. From my perspective, you're looking down your nose at me because I'm an unknown element, and/or I don't have some shiny prestigious domain in my email address. I post from my personal domain because I'd rather people listen to something I have to say because *I'm* saying it, not my employer. If you want to continue taking non-productive shots at me, we can continue this conversation offlist. - billn
Bill Nash wrote:
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement. Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing on virtual milk cartons is a problem. Fix it.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Janet Sullivan wrote:
Bill Nash wrote:
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement. Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing on virtual milk cartons is a problem. Fix it.
This is an excellent point to bring up, and it's good to have alternative forums. But. It's a band-aid, in the short term, and won't do much to 'unalienate' (disalienate?) those who have departed, by choice or otherwise, because of moderator actions. - billn
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 10:56 -0800, Bill Nash wrote:
But.
It's a band-aid, in the short term, and won't do much to 'unalienate' (disalienate?) those who have departed, by choice or otherwise, because of moderator actions.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the best advice for NANOG is *less* moderation, more acceptance of diverse opinions, and even greater self-control. Alternatively having the mailinglist MTA rate-limit posts might not be a bad thing either. -Jim P.
jimpop@yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch) writes:
Perhaps, just perhaps, the best advice for NANOG is *less* moderation, more acceptance of diverse opinions, and even greater self-control.
there's an ideal range of overall volume and debris quotient for any given population. clamp it too low and you shut off creativity. clamp it too high and you lose readers up to and including critical mass. single-ended recommendations like "less moderation" or "more moderation" are unlikely to do much good. recommendations like "more transparency in moderation" and "more objectivity/representation in moderation" seem, to me, to be more apropos. but then, that's why we're all meeting sunday night in LV NV, right?
Alternatively having the mailinglist MTA rate-limit posts might not be a bad thing either.
i don't think this would help much, either. stepping on a marble hurts and unbalances you just as much if you step on 100 marbles at once or if you step on one per hour. some kind of feedback/reinforcement loop has been a nec'y component of all useful forums in human history. making it volume dependent can't be good -- there are people i won't read at all and there are others i'll read all day long. so it must be for everybody here. -- Paul Vixie
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
To me, it's not a productive effort to micro-manage(or MERIT) the list via the FAQ. The FAQ is a traditional and historically acceptable method of answering questions that are bound to come up repeatedly as a primary result of new participants from any source.
Micro-managing isn't a good idea, period. Having actual answers available in the FAQ *is* a good idea. -- JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/ Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED) Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
participants (6)
-
Bill Nash
-
Hannigan, Martin
-
Janet Sullivan
-
Jim Popovitch
-
Paul Vixie
-
Steve Sobol