[92532] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Heutte)
Sun Sep 24 23:05:02 2006
From: Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 13:55:52 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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.
Fred
----------------
>
>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
>immediately.
>
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>
>=09Gadi.
>
>
