North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise
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, > > Gadi. > >
|