[Nanog-futures] Marching to a different drummer

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> I believe that many can contribute in 
> different aspects that might not have been visible or even a 
> notion to others. Some people tend to think outside of the 
> norm. 

Isn't this the whole point of NANOG? It started with getting
vendors, researchers and operators all together in the same
place. By their very nature these three groups see the world
differently and that is where the strength of NANOG came from
and that is what helped the Internet achieve exponential growth
and elbow aside the Information Highway concept.

If we think like gardeners trying to nurture NANOG, wouldn't we
actively encourage such contributions, and *NOT* try to force
everyone to conform to the cliquish ideal of the American Internet
Operator? NANOG is not a clique, not an old boys club, not a
secret society. It may sometimes have elements of all of these
but that doesn't mean there isn't place for topics which fall
outside the interests of the insiders.

> I also don't expect someone to get bent out of shape and 
> attempt to throw in an aura of "entitlement" because they 
> believe they're higher than someone else.

This is the fundamental problem with what Hannigan has been
doing recently. I also got a message from him, and like
J. Oquendo, I also misunderstood the tone of the message t
be an official warning. Also like J., I had not been active
on the list for a time, in my case 8 days, so the warning
seemed like an unfair bolt out of the blue. Having seen that
I am not the only recipient of Hannigan's bluster, I suspect
that there is a pattern here and others have also received
them. Like J. I don't agree that these messages are appropriate.

In the past, I have occasionally received personal messages
from the MLC, mostly Rob Seastrom but perhaps others as well.
The tone of those messages was worlds apart from Hannigan's
style and I never misunderstood them as official warnings and
always took them on board and dropped threads or whatever.
Given the fact that email is notorious for generating misunderstandings
about the tone of a message, I don't understand why the MLC
doesn't use some kind of form for any message that they send
in an official capacity. Even if it is a gentle nudge to
end a thread or steer back on topic, it could still be done 
with a template message.

I'm beginning to think that an AUP and a charter are simply
the wrong way to manage the content on a mailing list. 
A basic AUP is needed to establish what are the norms of
behavior, but when it comes to topicality, there has got
to be a better way to explain what is fodder for the list
and what should be discussed elsewhere. 

--Michael Dillon