From: Suresh Ramasubramanian (no email)
Date: Tue Jan 04 2005 - 22:27:50 EST
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 10:36:03 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:
> There are 2 problems with this.
>
> 1) A list already exists (spam-l) where these topics are discussed
> regularly and that list is a better place to discuss them due to the
One focus of thsi meeting must be that it should not degenerate into a
"let's all bash on the current moderator" argument - that will,
ultimately, not be very productive.
The issue on nanog is not spam discussions - it is an apparently
widely held perception among list members that the current moderation
of the list in an attempt to maintain signal to noise ratios is heavy
handed.
I've seen other lists where their admins have tried this approach - it
has, so far, not worked at all on any of the lists that it has been
tried on .. and to add to the fun, it tends to generate "uncivil
disobedience".
Like for example Randy Bush getting his posting rights revoked for
cross posting an email about an anycast experiment to nanog and
various other operator lists, with the To: header reading, in part -
"ops sheep willing to be censored by a non op" <>
Some would, rightly, say that Randy was wearing a giant "kick me" sign
when he posted that - but it has to be pointed out that this sort of
reaction is inevitable on mailing lists where the list admin exercises
his/her moderation powers beyond a certain extent in an effort to
enforce SNR on the list.
As spam-l keeps getting cited in this thread, please allow me to point
out that spam-l has a set of topics that posters have to prefix to
their posts, so that they can be categorized, and either read or not
read by list subscribers, who moreover get to decide just what list
topics they want to sign up to.
Nanog could have a set of similar topics - [OP-SEC] for operational
security related issues, [OP-SPAM] for when members really do want to
discuss spam issues that they consider operational, etc.
These are all ideas, though - what is needed urgently is for this
special meeting not to end up as a repetition of "the moderator is
heavy handed", "list members always wander off topic, and we have to
head them off somehow", and instead to develop on more productive
lines.
--srs
ps - finally, someone may want to suggest a slight change to point #4
in this slide, linked from the nanog AUP, to take into account current
list (non) membership:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/labovit/sld013.htm
|
|
|