From: Bill Nash (no email)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 14:38:27 EST
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> The changes that people are discussing have little to do with
> "what is" and "what isn't" on topic for the NANOG mailing list.
>
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement.
Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an
element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been
unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing on virtual milk
cartons is a problem. Fix it.
> What it does have lots to do with is cooperating on examination of the
> moderation and testing the current long-standing techniques to determine
> if they need to be re-vamped to reflect sentiments of the community at
> large.
Cooperation would be nice, yes, but that's a two way street. I should
point out that long-standing/traditional are not generally the best. The
long-standing technique is distinctly one-way.
> I am interested in discussing the possibilities of self-policing
> the list. An example would be when I suggested you earn some stripes.
> I said it. You ignored it. I opened my killfile. You land on it.
> That's much simpler.
And I'm sorry to say it, but that's close minded xenophobia. I'm generally
fine to lurk on the list and soak up clue on subjects in which I'm not an
expert, and keep tabs on relevant inter-network issues that affect the
network operations I'm responsible for. There generally aren't many
discussions on this list that involve my particular technical skillset, so
I do my part by not contributing noise.
Frankly, not posting seems to be the safest option, and you're certainly
fostering that notion by treating me like some random newbie with a shiny
new cable modem and vanity domain. I certainly don't think my relatively
few posts have been other than clear and to the point, or anything less
than focused on finding, or contributing, to possible solutions.
> Writing complicated rules and creating a Politburo-like atmosphere
> is in no-ones interest.
This isn't about writing complicated rules. Complicated rules are what I
put in my log analyzers. This is about curtailing abuse, and maintaining
an effective list. I haven't posted anything so far that requires
detailed, multi-section by laws, riders, addendums, references to the
previous question, calls for quorum or blood samples and biometrics for
authentication of all posts. I've asked for a simple, clear measuring
stick of what's valid for posting, and more importantly, what's valid for
moderator action. Troubleshooting 101: Identify the problem, find and plan
a solution, have a backout plan, then fix it.
Going offtopic, but staying germaine to the environment:
If my stripes are really of that much interest to you, my background
includes enterprise network management tools development, including
network inventory design (using flexible SNMP pollers capable of
abstracting nonhomogenous vender OID sets), scalable
distributed|aggregated syslog analyzers. I've also done complex network
troubleshooting from the wire up, many aspects of hands-on network
construction, and in-the-field troubleshooting (you know, where the
customer stands over your shoulder while you work.) You can even find
tools with my prototypical handiwork lurking inside them in places that
would likely surprise you.
Is that better? Is it safe for me to post now? Or do I need to submit a
DNA sample, polygraph, and twelve professional references along with my
resume? Just because I don't tout my clue, doesn't mean I don't have one.
This list is a tool. I use it, other people use it. I have as much
interest in this list being a functional part of my library of resources
as anyone else here. If you think I don't belong because I'm not an active
poster, I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong. From my perspective,
you're looking down your nose at me because I'm an unknown element, and/or
I don't have some shiny prestigious domain in my email address. I post
from my personal domain because I'd rather people listen to something I
have to say because *I'm* saying it, not my employer.
If you want to continue taking non-productive shots at me, we can continue
this conversation offlist.
- billn
|
|
|