NANOG-futures

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:59:27AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
> Think "definition of scope" as the boundary, not "rate of perceived 
> off-topic messages" as the boundary - we've had messages that were far 
> better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources.

Oh, I agree that such messages go by from time to time, but I'm not
sure anything more than:

	read this FAQ
	check this documents
	see this web page
	go ask on this mailing list, wiki, blog, etc.

is needed to deal with those.  Yes, we might agree that they're off-topic,
repetitive, annoying, etc., but -- and I'm not being flip -- so what?
Unless they have accompanying negative effects such as "mass unsubscription
from people who are sick of them" I don't see a need to define a boundary
(which would presumably leave these on the outside).

Many years ago (and sometimes still now) I took the approach that the
best way to keep mailing lists and newsgroups focused was to try to
enumerate their scope in minute detail.  I was counseled at the time
that perhaps this wasn't the best approach, because all such attempts
are doomed to fail, and when they do, there will inevitably be arguments
of the form:

	"But you didn't say [this particular topic] was disallowed!"
	"But it is clearly related to [foo] and [bar], don't you see?"
	"No, I don't, it's obviously different, you're being arbitrary!"

the fallout from which is invariably worse than just letting the discussion
wind itself through to a natural conclusion and moving on.  I have slowly
learned ("slowly" because I'm a stubborn bastard) that maybe that advice
was more prescient than I grasped at the time.

I'm not suggesting that nanog should let itself become the de facto
go-to resource for "how do I change the IP address on my Ubuntu box?"
I'm suggesting that the exercise of trying to exhaustively enumerate
everything that's in-scope and not-in-scope is never-ending and very
likely to fail, and that it's better to trust that the vast majority
of nanog participants are clueful, bright (and sometimes vocal) people
who will react en masse when they see a problem that needs solving.

> But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for trying 
> to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock for a while 
> (that's the "shut up" portion of RS's instructions to me).

I *am* discussing, not flaming.  Yet. ;-)  You wanna see flaming, ask me
about spam. ;-)

---Rsk

_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures