[125091] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario -
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Thu Apr 8 18:43:17 2010
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <o2p877585b01004081539p10dfd372i45e9c7cb3b84e2cc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:42:37 -0400
To: Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:39 45PM, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's =
more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no =
gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will =
be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed =
to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the =
job.
>=20
> So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating.
> Sure it's thankless work if you do it in secret and in silence. But
> the occasional message to the list wouldn't hurt. People WOULD feel
> thankful if they see that the CC is making an attempt.
>=20
>> So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered =
to be on the CC.
>=20
> Right, so you are an unvolunteer on the CC. Why do we only hear from
> unvolunteers?
>=20
There are some benefits to them not acting too quickly -- I finally had =
enough motivation to figure out what the bugs were in my "plonk" =
script...
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
