Re: Topicality and audiences [was Re: tech support being flooded due to IE 0day]
It doesn't matter who wrote:
If you don't find network operations to be relevant, then by all means STOP POSTING TO THE GOD DAMNED NETWORK OPERATIONS MAILING LIST. Some of those, particularly those who *gasp* run networks, still find it relevent. If there is this much disagreement about your posts, maybe you should find a different place to make them.
In spite of repeated rants like this one (I'm too tired and lazy to disguise the author of it further, the particular author here is not important), the problem is not "What kind of list is NANOG?" It really isn't. I don't think a strong case that many active posters here are confused about that it really hard to make. There really ought to be a moratorium on the question of what kind of a list is NANOG. The question has always been, in my my mind, "What the hell does "Operations" mean to the participants here. (I have on several occasions said what I think it means to others, I'll spare me the agony of doing that again just now.) I have for years incorrectly assumed (nay, insisted) that "Operations topics" include just about everything that has to do with operating a network or networks, or network of networks. I don't think it includes the mindless, repetitive, numbing harassment of somebody that has an issue affecting his or her operation that either needs help, or wants to share a lesson learned. Frankly, a scholarly analysis of the archives (edited or not) would show, I'll bet, that there are more items about what is on topic than there are about any other subject-group. -- Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio http://members.cox.net/larrysheldon/
I hadn't checked this list for a week or so, and today was met with this deluge of posts regarding topicality [again], in response, might I offer a couple of stray thoughts? The debate and subsequent infighting has become far more disruptive now, then the occasional offtopic post. It is a simple thing to filter a particular member, but near impossible to filter the ensuing fallout from an 'offtopic' thread. I can think of a couple of ways to make things a little better for the innocent bystanders amoung us: -Self Moderating Approach Grey Areas. If you think your post could be considered off topic by some, simply prefix the subject with '[offtopic]', then it is a simple thing to filter, and your post is far less likely to be met with a negative response. Clarify what -is- on topic. Are worms/virii on topic? Possibly.. If: it is SANS top 10, and an emerging issue with potential to dramatically amplify traffic flow, Then: I want to hear about it, Else: [offtopic]. Are botnets offtopic? I would say yes, there are better and dedicated venues for those discussions. Are these endless debates about what is offtopic subject matter themselves 'offtopic', clearly they are.. prefix please. A definitive set of posting guidelines, one that leaves litlle to individual interpretation could be established, leave less up to the 'debateniqs' to rant about, by creating a clear and concise set of acceptable subject matter rules. There is the issue of sustaining readership. If window of acceptable subject matter is too narrow, appeal will decline, and with it some of the readership that we need to remain active will leave the list, hence we need some [reasonable] measure of flexibility allowed for in guidelines, [think: discretion]. As for issues that are clearly outside definitive guidelines but still of general interest, maybe a relaxed charter on Fridays? I rather enjoy Fergie's article references, just make sure to use the [offtopic] thingie. -Moderated Approach Create an nanogofftopic@ to give a vent to members. If a post is clearly offtopic and not announced as such, use a 'three strikes your out' approach, first warning and inviting review of list guidelines, then as a last measure cancelling list subscription. Include 'this is offtopic!' responders among offences, and maybe we can reduce some of the list noise. John
John Underhill wrote: [snip]
There is the issue of sustaining readership. If window of acceptable subject matter is too narrow, appeal will decline, and with it some of the readership that we need to remain active will leave the list, hence we need some [reasonable] measure of flexibility allowed for in guidelines, [think: discretion]. [snip] John
I would like to interject my two bits as well, if permissible. As a student of the Network Administration, I joined this list to get a better understanding of the trade as a whole, and I can say that without reservation I have learned an enormous amount. That said, if the list became subject to a strict set of posting rules, the value that I derive from lurking here diminishes greatly, as I will no longer be seeing Network Operations as a whole, but some subset thereof that has been artificially imposed. I think that the best way for the list to remain at least somewhat focused is very simple: ignore it. If you think that a post is offtopic, don't respond at all. If an argument gets out of hand, ignore it. Don't post saying "Don't feed the troll," don't say "How is this related to Network Operations?" If you and everyone else feels that it is offtopic, and ignore it, that one message will remain one message, rather than becoming several hundred, and eventually the trolls and OT posters will leave, because they are no longer generating the response that they had hoped. If the behavior becomes bad enough, I believe that there is an oversight committee who is quite capable of running a couple of 'unsubscribes' through the system to maintain some semblance of order. Again, just my 2 (student) bits. -- Josh Cheney jcheney@mfx.net http://www.joshcheney.com
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, John Underhill wrote:
-Moderated Approach Create an nanogofftopic@ to give a vent to members. If a post is clearly offtopic and not announced as such, use a 'three strikes your out' approach, first warning and inviting review of list guidelines, then as a last measure cancelling list subscription. Include 'this is offtopic!' responders among offences, and maybe we can reduce some of the list noise.
Hi John, thanks for the wise words. I believe our biggest problem is that "on topic" is not defined. Many here see different issues as operational to them while a few here always yell and scream the minute someone posts that interest. An off-topic list won't help much, if we can't decide, by poll or arbitrary choice, what actually is on-topic. That can later on be followed. Lists evolve, readerships change, and subjects of interest change. But without certain guidelines, I don't see why any crowd should be silenced or any minority with loud voices should silence them. If such a concensus/decision is reached, it will be followed to the letter with the full backing of whoever needs to back itup. Thanks, Gadi.
John
Hi Gadi, I took the effort and looked into the other postings of some of the guys. I guess they are only keyword or sender envoked bots. I have never seen any positive postings from them. Kind regards Peter and Karin Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, John Underhill wrote:
-Moderated Approach Create an nanogofftopic@ to give a vent to members. If a post is clearly offtopic and not announced as such, use a 'three strikes your out' approach, first warning and inviting review of list guidelines, then as a last measure cancelling list subscription. Include 'this is offtopic!' responders among offences, and maybe we can reduce some of the list noise.
Hi John, thanks for the wise words.
I believe our biggest problem is that "on topic" is not defined. Many here see different issues as operational to them while a few here always yell and scream the minute someone posts that interest.
An off-topic list won't help much, if we can't decide, by poll or arbitrary choice, what actually is on-topic. That can later on be followed.
Lists evolve, readerships change, and subjects of interest change. But without certain guidelines, I don't see why any crowd should be silenced or any minority with loud voices should silence them.
If such a concensus/decision is reached, it will be followed to the letter with the full backing of whoever needs to back itup.
Thanks,
Gadi.
John
-- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/
participants (5)
-
Gadi Evron -
John Underhill -
Josh Cheney -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Peter Dambier