recap of nanog-futures on "on topic" and proposed compromise

William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson at
Sun Sep 24 17:35:04 UTC 2006

Gadi Evron wrote:
> A compromise has now been suggested (by me). The only thing both sides
> agree on is that in fact, the replies and flame wars on what is on topic
> or isn't, and who should speak of what, are disruptive.

> How about we, for now, only change one thing about NANOG - the specific
> off topic posts that tell others to be quiet, or that they are
> off-topic will be disallowed. This is really a concensus and a good way to
> start making progress rather than escalating a conflict between people
> who just want to get things done and see the NANOG community as a home.

> I believe it's a good temporary solution which will take us ahead, to
> measure how things go, as well as be able to find out what we all agree
> on afterwards. As well as increase the value of the list almost
> immediately.
> This re-cap is from my perspective, naturally. We can keep arguing over
> who said what or what's on or off topic forever. Consolidating on what we
> all agree would be a change for the better and starting there sounds like
> a good idea to me.
> Solving this in a civil fashion just became so much more attractive.
Agreed, and I've been restraining myself for some time.  I didn't hit Send
on my vituperative response when that twit wrote:
   "I'm not aware of any network of any consequence where the people who
   run, design, or build the infrastructure have any relationship to end
   user tech support call centers."

Especially as I'm not aware of any Network Operator worth their salt that
doesn't have regular contact with their support call centers.

More information about the NANOG mailing list