Paul Vixie wrote: I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interim governance),
So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of the nanog-reform community.
Perception isn't *actually* reality,
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post] I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the context I wrote it:
but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing.
For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the nanog-reform community can be found in two places: 1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/
List Administration Group Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself, with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic. Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow policies set by the board. They should be people with an understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken. There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions
2. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2). 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary).
Being one of the "bylaws drafters" I agree with this. Michel.
It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to). I am also speaking only for myself on this. I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the discussion. -Steve On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Michel Py wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote: I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform community accepting responsibility for provisional moderation (a form of interim governance),
So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of the nanog-reform community.
Perception isn't *actually* reality,
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the context I wrote it:
but in politics (which this is) the difference between perception and reality is just not worth discussing.
For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the nanog-reform community can be found in two places:
1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/
List Administration Group Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself, with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic. Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow policies set by the board. They should be people with an understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken. There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions
2. http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2). 8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
William Allen Simpson wrote: Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate. It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor (or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary).
Being one of the "bylaws drafters" I agree with this.
Michel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gibbard scg@gibbard.org +1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg +1 510 528-1035 (home)
On 02/19/05, Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org> wrote:
I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the discussion.
*agree* There still needs to be a formal announcement, for those who may be interested but are ignoring this thread. I'll leave that to the current governors, though, 'cause it's not my place. -- J.D. Falk uncertainty is only a virtue <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> when you don't know the answer yet
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but old news.
http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh? --Michael Dillon
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 11:05:03AM +0000, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but old news.
The nanog-reform list was announced both on nanog@ and during the Sunday night meeting in Vegas. It is a public list.
http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
I wouldn't really classify a set of draft bylaws that are being constantly discussed on a mailing list that has been publicly announced, that live on a web site that anyone can read or post changes to, as "hidden away." Particularly when any complete set of bylaws would be voted on anyway. People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly. --msa
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, in the realm of politics, perception equals reality. If something is not completely in the open then people tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing backroom deals to sieze power. The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed. If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the nanog-reform.org homepage. If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put information about it on the website. If there really are some interim results as reflected by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this info on the nanog-reform.org website. Dot the i's. Cross the t's. The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only partially represented by this mailing list and even less represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are many, many IP network operators in North America (and elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general comment on behavior which is widespread on this list. It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and organizations to better meet the needs of the industry and the IP network operations community. --Michael Dillon
Arhchive here michael: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/ not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first few messages nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now. we saw this successful in vegas with the community forum and the document on the nanog-reform site was well put together. what we have now is what happens when 5000 people try to negotiate which is many varying opinions, vocal people getting more airtime than they ought to when their opinions are only their opeinions and nnot necessarily the opinions of any large group. some folks need to write a document, propose it, vote on it and majority rules.. not everyone will like all of it but its not possible to write a document that satisfies everyone 100%. i believe thats the aim of the bbylaws doc - please dont flame it, provide constructive comments, be prepared to compromise and dont get lost in minutia when the major points have yet to be fixed. Steve On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out, in the realm of politics, perception equals reality.
If something is not completely in the open then people tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing backroom deals to sieze power.
The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed.
If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page. Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the nanog-reform.org homepage.
If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put information about it on the website.
If there really are some interim results as reflected by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this info on the nanog-reform.org website.
Dot the i's. Cross the t's.
The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only partially represented by this mailing list and even less represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are many, many IP network operators in North America (and elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list. This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general comment on behavior which is widespread on this list.
It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and organizations to better meet the needs of the industry and the IP network operations community.
--Michael Dillon
On 21 Feb 2005, at 10:06, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
nanog-reform here: http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html
again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much like what we have now.
And since it an open list (and since I had trouble finding subscription information at the above URL or at www.nanog-reform.org) the following might be useful to others: To subscribe, send mail to: nanog-reform-subscribe@nac.net Joe
participants (7)
-
J.D. Falk -
Joe Abley -
Majdi Abbas -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Michel Py -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Steve Gibbard