On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Joe Shaw wrote:

I think moderating the group might not be such a bad idea. The only problem with this would be getting someone who had enough time to actually moderate the list. I don't know what is going on lately, but it seems egos and animosity are running rampant on both inet-access and nanog. I have been caught up in it myself, and for that I apologize.

Every once and awhile a message is sent to the list that needs immediate propogation. A fiber cut notice that might benefit other companies, things like that. Therefore I'm not sure total moderation would be the right answer. Maybe moderation for the average-user such as myself and allow posts from the more active/knowledgable/important people to go right through without moderation. Keith ========================================================================== Keith Michael McCallion Network Operations Manager Trippin @ irc.hick.com Internet Specialties West keith@iswest.net 31194 La Baya Dr, Ste 100 (818) 735 3000 Ext. 107 Westlake Village, Calif. 91362 ==========================================================================

The NANOG goes through periods of "verbosity", they seem to correlate with "generations" of backbone maintainers.... Much like a teenager, when we first enter the list we know it all... Months/Years later, it is amazing how much we now *don't* know..... The Verbosity seems to correlate to this phenomena... It is my own personal pet theory that we are experiencing the "Next Generation"..... Give it time, soon they will be as dumb as the rest of us...... ;) Keith McCallion wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Joe Shaw wrote:

...

I think moderating the group might not be such a bad idea. The only problem with this would be getting someone who had enough time to actually moderate the list. I don't know what is going on lately, but it seems egos and animosity are running rampant on both inet-access and nanog. I have been caught up in it myself, and for that I apologize.

Every once and awhile a message is sent to the list that needs immediate propogation. A fiber cut notice that might benefit other companies, things like that. Therefore I'm not sure total moderation would be the right answer. Maybe moderation for the average-user such as myself and allow posts from the more active/knowledgable/important people to go right through without moderation.

Keith ========================================================================== Keith Michael McCallion Network Operations Manager Trippin @ irc.hick.com Internet Specialties West keith@iswest.net 31194 La Baya Dr, Ste 100 (818) 735 3000 Ext. 107 Westlake Village, Calif. 91362 ==========================================================================

I think moderating the group might not be such a bad idea. The only problem with this would be getting someone who had enough time to actually moderate the list. I don't know what is going on lately, but it seems egos and animosity are running rampant on both inet-access and nanog. I have been caught up in it myself, and for that I apologize.

There is some value to NANOG ... value that is currently lost ... for things like semi-urgent notifications of what is going on. Yet for many issues there is a lot that people here want to talk about, sometime with each other, sometimes just _at_ each other, yet talk they must. I would not want to bog NANOG down with a moderator (or is that bog a moderator down with NANOG?). My suggestion would be to have a forum, or maybe an alternate mailing list, called "NANOG-BOF" (alias "NANOG-BOG") where one "side issues" can be discussed. Then it would be easy to just take dragging issues to there. If it were a web forum I would participate. If it were a mailing list I would not. I prefer to keep my mailbox lean for important stuff. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --

Edward S. Marshall wrote:

This has already been tried (I believe someone created the "offtopic-bullshit" list at one point for inet-access), and just doesn't work; the people involved -don't use it-, and moderating a forum like NANOG would reduce the speed at which urgent operational messages would go out (before you say "make an exception list for those with clue", think about who decides who gets on that "clue list", and how people are removed from it). And this is a operator's list; you should expect a certain minimum of discussion of operations-related issues.

You say it has been tried, but but then your example is of something entirely different. So I assert that it has NOT been tried. Should I propose it again so you can really read it this time? I proposed a web based FORUM ... not a mailing list. I did mention in my own posting that I would not join if it were a mailing list. Perhaps the "offtopic-bullshit" list for inet-access failed because lots of people, maybe the majority, feel as I do, that a high volume discussion does not belong in a mailbox. The reason I proposed it is to help keep NANOG un-moderated. I do agree that NANOG needs to remain un-moderated. I don't want to see any sort of process of having to decide who can and who cannot post to NANOG, either. I don't suggest that all discussion be rejected from the mailing list. But a separate FORUM would at least be a place where people can divert to carry out additional conversations, especially those things that are of interest to many members of NANOG, but not of interest to all.

Personally, NANOG's signal-to-noise ratio is still incredibly low compared to most lists I'm on. Allow me to voice my vote for leaving things the way they are: open posting for those who have actually worked out how to subscribe to the posting list.

I'm not suggesting that point be changed. My proposal was to help ensure that it can remain this way.

The one suggestion I'd make would be starting to be a little more aggressive about letting people know that their messages are offtopic (via Merit listadmins or appointed watchdogs), and clamping down on repeat offenders (by removal of posting priviledges). Self-moderation via consequences, vs. enforced moderation.

This may not be necessary if we have an area for diversion. All that needs to be said when a thread on the mailing list gets too far off base is "take it over to the forum". Then if someone refuses to do that they can have their posting revoked. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --