Re: recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise
Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then proposing artificial self-serving "compromises" is one of the oldest games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the invention of Usenet. At the risk of playing a small role in this instance, as a longtime lurker I simply point out the predictable failure pattern here. Fred ----------------
Basically, there is a crowd that says only network related stuff, say, trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them alone) would be interested in, is on topic.
Others say there are other issues which are oprations related and of interest to them. We are split.
A compromise has now been suggested (by me). The only thing both sides agree on is that in fact, the replies and flame wars on what is on topic or isn't, and who should speak of what, are disruptive.
Thus, the compromise idea is that for now and for a predetermined period of time, we start with one small change. Debugging is done one step at a time rather than in earthshattering moves.
How about we, for now, only change one thing about NANOG - the specific off topic posts that tell others to be quiet, or that they are off-topic will be disallowed. This is really a concensus and a good way to start making progress rather than escalating a conflict between people who just want to get things done and see the NANOG community as a home.
I believe it's a good temporary solution which will take us ahead, to measure how things go, as well as be able to find out what we all agree on afterwards. As well as increase the value of the list almost immediately.
This re-cap is from my perspective, naturally. We can keep arguing over who said what or what's on or off topic forever. Consolidating on what we all agree would be a change for the better and starting there sounds like a good idea to me.
Solving this in a civil fashion just became so much more attractive.
Thanks,
Gadi.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Fred Heutte wrote:
Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then proposing artificial self-serving "compromises" is one of the oldest games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the invention of Usenet. At the risk of playing a small role in this instance, as a longtime lurker I simply point out the predictable failure pattern here.
Please join us on NANOG-futures than and help either flame, or come up with something to move us forward. :) Gadi.
Fred
----------------
Basically, there is a crowd that says only network related stuff, say, trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them alone) would be interested in, is on topic.
Others say there are other issues which are oprations related and of interest to them. We are split.
A compromise has now been suggested (by me). The only thing both sides agree on is that in fact, the replies and flame wars on what is on topic or isn't, and who should speak of what, are disruptive.
Thus, the compromise idea is that for now and for a predetermined period of time, we start with one small change. Debugging is done one step at a time rather than in earthshattering moves.
How about we, for now, only change one thing about NANOG - the specific off topic posts that tell others to be quiet, or that they are off-topic will be disallowed. This is really a concensus and a good way to start making progress rather than escalating a conflict between people who just want to get things done and see the NANOG community as a home.
I believe it's a good temporary solution which will take us ahead, to measure how things go, as well as be able to find out what we all agree on afterwards. As well as increase the value of the list almost immediately.
This re-cap is from my perspective, naturally. We can keep arguing over who said what or what's on or off topic forever. Consolidating on what we all agree would be a change for the better and starting there sounds like a good idea to me.
Solving this in a civil fashion just became so much more attractive.
Thanks,
Gadi.
participants (2)
-
Fred Heutte -
Gadi Evron