Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
bzs at world.std.com
Mon Oct 16 21:24:55 UTC 1995
From: Jeff.Ogden at um.cc.umich.edu
>I'm not too worried about enforcability at this point. I think
>there are two issues here. One is more or less a code of good
>conduct. The other is what to do when people don't follow the
>code. At this stage I'd be happy if we could just inform people
>what acceptable conduct is. We can figure out what to do about
>people who don't play along later.
I agree, but I'll even go a bit further.
When issues like this come up people tend to assume they are all in
agreement and talking about the same thing. It's true that in the
extreme they probably are. But my guess is that if a sizeable group
tried to write down what is and is not acceptable it will become
apparent that, again other than the most egregious behavior, agreement
isn't as easy as it may've first appeared.
I suppose one can stick to codifying only the worst sort of behavior,
but that always raises the issue of whether this then implies that
other behaviors are acceptable? If 100 messages are unacceptable, then
are 99 ok? Can we live with zero tolerance only? etc.
I think this all can be resolved with some mere shouting and
screaming. But the exercise should also be enlightening: If a group
such as this has some difficulty agreeing on the boundaries then
surely laying the same out for others clearly, even just as an
informatory document, would be worthwhile. How could the community at
large have been expected to intuit what we can't easily define?
At any rate, it'd be a good start.
Software Tool & Die | bzs at world.std.com | http://www.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
More information about the NANOG