[Nanog-futures] nanog AUP wrt subject evolution (was: Creating a crystal clear and pure Internet)
hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 00:41:15 UTC 2007
On Nov 27, 2007 5:36 PM, James R. Cutler <james.cutler at consultant.com> wrote:
> Amen to the concern regarding wandering topic vs subject header.
We've mentioned this before and I think it's a very worthy change to
the NANOG AUP and wish it had been included in the new version. It was
discussed, but nobody thought of adding it. I will see about including
it in the next version.
> WRT "operations content", I can make a strong case that managing
> naming and addressing assignments is equally important to network
> operations (and design, and re-design, ad infinitum) as is BGP
> communities or router configurations or traffic monitoring or...
> But, when I speak of this, I try to keep to the subject header or
> start a new topic. It would seem prudent for NANOG list monitors to
> assign effort more to staying on track in a discussion than trying to
> limit the absolute scope of discussion topics.
This is a trend that is occurring. Most of the notes that I have sent
out to users have been as a result of straying from topic with some
irrelevant posting and I appreciate that you (some of you) acknowledge
that this may be prudent. I also hope that folks understand we aren't
just picking people off willy nilly based on a single post, rather,
there is usually a trend established by the poster before they get
noticed. A single off topic or irrelevant remark is not nearly enough
to get a note from any admin as far as I am aware. To date, we also
have not issued any warnings. I personally frown upon it as a method
of supporting the AUP, but I did recommend one today. We haven't got
100% support so I'm not planning on pursuing it unless we do. May take
on a life of it's own, but I'm all for overwhelming consensus.
As far as subject evolution goes, we are seeing that happen here and I
support it 100%. We don't need an AUP change for list posters to talk
about internet network operations. We need people to not pay too much
attention to some of the minds and voices that are stuck in the 80's
and not evolving with the network or the culture. Let's face it,
gopher and archie are not used as much as they used to be. To
paraphrase someone I know, 'bgp has been talked to death'. I'm
interested in making things more cohesive which means broader, and
more interesting, discussions.
Thanks in advance, and if a discussion does ensue, please don't change
the subject so people can decide what they want to read or not read on
(Who isn't posting to futures because he is not subscribed to it)
More information about the NANOG