Proposed list charter/AUP change?

Paul Vixie vixie at
Wed Jan 5 20:29:53 UTC 2005

jimpop at (Jim Popovitch) writes:

> Perhaps, just perhaps, the best advice for NANOG is *less* moderation,
> more acceptance of diverse opinions, and even greater self-control.

there's an ideal range of overall volume and debris quotient for any
given population.  clamp it too low and you shut off creativity.  clamp
it too high and you lose readers up to and including critical mass.

single-ended recommendations like "less moderation" or "more moderation"
are unlikely to do much good.  recommendations like "more transparency
in moderation" and "more objectivity/representation in moderation" seem,
to me, to be more apropos.

but then, that's why we're all meeting sunday night in LV NV, right?

> Alternatively having the mailinglist MTA rate-limit posts might not be
> a bad thing either.

i don't think this would help much, either.  stepping on a marble hurts
and unbalances you just as much if you step on 100 marbles at once or if
you step on one per hour.  some kind of feedback/reinforcement loop has
been a nec'y component of all useful forums in human history.  making it
volume dependent can't be good -- there are people i won't read at all
and there are others i'll read all day long.  so it must be for everybody
Paul Vixie

More information about the NANOG mailing list