On Nov 27, 2007 5:36 PM, James R. Cutler <james.cutler@consultant.com> wrote:

Amen to the concern regarding wandering topic vs subject header.

We've mentioned this before and I think it's a very worthy change to the NANOG AUP and wish it had been included in the new version. It was discussed, but nobody thought of adding it. I will see about including it in the next version.

WRT "operations content", I can make a strong case that managing naming and addressing assignments is equally important to network operations (and design, and re-design, ad infinitum) as is BGP communities or router configurations or traffic monitoring or... But, when I speak of this, I try to keep to the subject header or start a new topic. It would seem prudent for NANOG list monitors to assign effort more to staying on track in a discussion than trying to limit the absolute scope of discussion topics.

This is a trend that is occurring. Most of the notes that I have sent out to users have been as a result of straying from topic with some irrelevant posting and I appreciate that you (some of you) acknowledge that this may be prudent. I also hope that folks understand we aren't just picking people off willy nilly based on a single post, rather, there is usually a trend established by the poster before they get noticed. A single off topic or irrelevant remark is not nearly enough to get a note from any admin as far as I am aware. To date, we also have not issued any warnings. I personally frown upon it as a method of supporting the AUP, but I did recommend one today. We haven't got 100% support so I'm not planning on pursuing it unless we do. May take on a life of it's own, but I'm all for overwhelming consensus. As far as subject evolution goes, we are seeing that happen here and I support it 100%. We don't need an AUP change for list posters to talk about internet network operations. We need people to not pay too much attention to some of the minds and voices that are stuck in the 80's and not evolving with the network or the culture. Let's face it, gopher and archie are not used as much as they used to be. To paraphrase someone I know, 'bgp has been talked to death'. I'm interested in making things more cohesive which means broader, and more interesting, discussions. Thanks in advance, and if a discussion does ensue, please don't change the subject so people can decide what they want to read or not read on their own. Marty (Who isn't posting to futures because he is not subscribed to it)