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
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Fred Heutte wrote: > > 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. Please join us on NANOG-futures than and help either flame, or come up with something to move us forward. :) Gadi. > > 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. > > > > > >
|