North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise
- From: Gadi Evron
- Date: Mon Sep 25 01:51:15 2006
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.
> >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
> >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.
> > Gadi.