North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG

  • From: Bill Nash
  • Date: Sat Dec 04 15:29:43 2004

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
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.
In the same vein, outright exclusion, when other options haven't been exhausted, is hardly the way to maintain a working meritocracy. With the exception of one or two posters, I'm fairly positive most subscribers on this list are real people, with real faults and personalities. Some personalities may be suspect, but most faults appear to be real.

The list's AUP includes actions to be taken for users going off topic, or abusing the list. I've seen various list members do more about making sure things stay on topic, than anyone with moderation credentials. I'm thinking back, and not recalling many instances in the past few years where there has been a friendly reminder, much less an inspired one, about list policies and what's 'on topic'. Most people know, some people clearly need(ed) reminding. Sanctions at this level undermine the whole.

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.
Your 'nope' also stood on it's own as a vague, undirected comment, and gave very little indication as to what you actually meant. My initial read of it led me to conclude that you harbor some dislike for the two aforementioned persons. Whatever the case may be, I would think the rampant intelligence present on this list would generally place people above petty disagreements and allow them to focus on the merit of a given thread. Again, since some members of this list are actual people, this may be hard, but not impossible.

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.
I don't think reform is needed. Certainly, nothing drastic. The problems have been pretty clearly laid on the table. A couple of minor changes in the way a few people do things is a much better fix. Most of what's needed is a working feedback loop to keep things in check, moderators and subscribers alike. There's one spec'd in the list charter. Why isn't it being used?

- billn