: Susan Harris' supervisor at MERIT. Chances are, I : will be censored for this and banned almost This whole censorship thing has me wondering as to the continued viability of this list as a place where the clue-heavy hang out and speak freely. Paul Vixie has been warned, randy Bush has been banned. Who else has been banned that'd be considered a clue-heavy NANOG poster? Why are folks being banned? Last I heard, procmail still works. Folks are becoming afraid to post due to worries about being banned. S/N: Isn't the goal to increase S and reduce N? If you reduce both S and N, you don't get a better signal. With randy gone, the S has definitely decreased. Who else is gone that reduces S? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, nanog gonan wrote:
This whole censorship thing has me wondering as to the continued viability of this list as a place where the
Perhaps if the core purpose of the list could be maintained without having dozens of off-topic/useless/banteresque messages per day the list would serve more purpose. I grow weary of having to sift through all the b.s. some people drift into. It's gotten to the point where several times I've considered unsubscribing. How about everyone exhibit a little more self control regarding off-topic posts, and use reply-to-sender instead of cc'ing the list when not necessary.
banned_on_nanog@yahoo.com (nanog gonan) writes:
This whole censorship thing has me wondering as to the continued viability of this list as a place where the clue-heavy hang out and speak freely. Paul Vixie has been warned, randy Bush has been banned. Who else has been banned that'd be considered a clue-heavy NANOG poster?
on the one hand, thank you for your kind words. inside isc i'm known as being somewhat clue-light most of the time (probably with justification.) on the other hand, susan's warnings to me were absolutely called for, as i was off in the weeds a little bit TOO often. i'm fine w/ what happened.
Why are folks being banned? Last I heard, procmail still works. Folks are becoming afraid to post due to worries about being banned.
S/N: Isn't the goal to increase S and reduce N? If you reduce both S and N, you don't get a better signal. With randy gone, the S has definitely decreased. Who else is gone that reduces S?
i think you're looking at this the wrong way. consider what happens to a habitat when a given species has no limit to its population -- no shortage of food, no natural predator. the first time i heard the word "overrun" it was not about buffer size but about biology. individual humans usually have a conscience. groups of humans usually don't. if not for susan reminding us from time to time why this mailing list exists and why we subscribed to it in the first place, and prodding us gently to get on with that business and stay out of side topics, the "S" would remain constant but the "N" would ratchet upward and we'd be back on Usenet again. i'm hoping that there will be an in-person discussion of mailing list "rules of the road" in las vegas. if any significant chunk of the nanog population feels that there are presently too many rules, and too high an "S", and not enough "N", then they'll presumably "vote with their feet" (or cause the rules to become more relaxed.) -- Paul Vixie
I'm under the impression that a discussion of that sort will occur in Los Vegas. There has been significant off-list chatter regarding this. Its entirely possible for nanog-l to be self policing, or, failing that, for users to simply use procmail on those who wander off-topic (for some definition of off-topic). Putting an [OT] subject banner on such posts is also nice. There's such a thing as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When highly clued, genuinely contributing folks are treated poorly for the occasional in-joke or comment, the S:N ratio will suffer in the longer term. I'm certainly hoping that the network operations community will feel no need to "talk with their feet" after we all sit down with the Merit staff and let our feelings be known, but that is certainly a possibility. - Dan On 12/2/04 8:48 PM, "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
banned_on_nanog@yahoo.com (nanog gonan) writes:
This whole censorship thing has me wondering as to the continued viability of this list as a place where the clue-heavy hang out and speak freely. Paul Vixie has been warned, randy Bush has been banned. Who else has been banned that'd be considered a clue-heavy NANOG poster?
on the one hand, thank you for your kind words. inside isc i'm known as being somewhat clue-light most of the time (probably with justification.)
on the other hand, susan's warnings to me were absolutely called for, as i was off in the weeds a little bit TOO often. i'm fine w/ what happened.
Why are folks being banned? Last I heard, procmail still works. Folks are becoming afraid to post due to worries about being banned.
S/N: Isn't the goal to increase S and reduce N? If you reduce both S and N, you don't get a better signal. With randy gone, the S has definitely decreased. Who else is gone that reduces S?
i think you're looking at this the wrong way. consider what happens to a habitat when a given species has no limit to its population -- no shortage of food, no natural predator. the first time i heard the word "overrun" it was not about buffer size but about biology.
individual humans usually have a conscience. groups of humans usually don't. if not for susan reminding us from time to time why this mailing list exists and why we subscribed to it in the first place, and prodding us gently to get on with that business and stay out of side topics, the "S" would remain constant but the "N" would ratchet upward and we'd be back on Usenet again.
i'm hoping that there will be an in-person discussion of mailing list "rules of the road" in las vegas. if any significant chunk of the nanog population feels that there are presently too many rules, and too high an "S", and not enough "N", then they'll presumably "vote with their feet" (or cause the rules to become more relaxed.)
--
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Daniel Golding wrote: > ...after we all sit down with the Merit staff and let our feelings > be known. Uh, didn't you guys do that at the last NANOG? Is someone under the misimpression that there's anyone at Merit who doesn't know your feelings? -Bill
participants (5)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Blaxthos -
Daniel Golding -
nanog gonan -
Paul Vixie