North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Sat Dec 04 12:36:41 2004

> >> ... I think we all agree that RAS and Randy don't fall into the above
> >> category of having to be gotten ridden of. ...
> >
> > nope.
> 
> Perhaps the fact that even some of the longest standing, most respected,
> "clueful" members of the list cannot agree on such things proves that a
> non-technical administrator with no operational experience has no chance
> of correctly concluding which people "fall into the above category"?

first of all, who somebody is or how longstanding or how clueful are all
subjective measures at best, and actually quite irrelevant.  meritocracy,
which this and all similar street-level forums must be based on, depends
on the quality of what you're saying today, not on the quality of what
you've said in the past -- either by average or by peak.

second of all, my "nope" doesn't nec'ily mean i agree or disagree about
steenbergen and bush.  only that i am directly aware of counterexamples
(numerous in each case) to the assertion i was "noping".  whether those
counterexamples represent mature or respected opinions, or whether i am
one, are not offered up as topics of further discussion.

third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now,
and the folks who want to grab them aren't universal in their motives or
goals.  some folks think that rules are bad.  others think that susan is
bad or that merit is bad.  some say that rules are ok if the community has
visibility and ultimate control.  the enemy of your enemy might or might
not be a permanent friend when you're contemplating societal reform.
-- 
Paul Vixie