[92513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [offtopic] Topicality debate [my 2 bits]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gadi Evron)
Sat Sep 23 23:07:20 2006
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:05:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org>
To: John Underhill <stepnwlf@magma.ca>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000401c6df64$3c74f7a0$fa01bfce@john624alurqwm>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, John Underhill wrote:
> -Moderated Approach
> Create an nanogofftopic@ to give a vent to members. If a post is clearly
> offtopic and not announced as such, use a 'three strikes your out' approach,
> first warning and inviting review of list guidelines, then as a last measure
> cancelling list subscription. Include 'this is offtopic!' responders among
> offences, and maybe we can reduce some of the list noise.
Hi John, thanks for the wise words.
I believe our biggest problem is that "on topic" is not defined. Many here
see different issues as operational to them while a few here always yell
and scream the minute someone posts that interest.
An off-topic list won't help much, if we can't decide, by poll or
arbitrary choice, what actually is on-topic. That can later on be
followed.
Lists evolve, readerships change, and subjects of interest change. But
without certain guidelines, I don't see why any crowd should be silenced
or any minority with loud voices should silence them.
If such a concensus/decision is reached, it will be followed to the letter
with the full backing of whoever needs to back itup.
Thanks,
Gadi.
> John
>
