NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Tue Jun 14 20:51:36 UTC 2016

The world of networking is in itself decentralized. In the event a certain
network starts behaving badly, other networks will take appropriate action
by themselves if they see it as a problem.

I see no need to become a nanny state over issues like this. If someone is
being belligerent and harming people, that's a different story. But
criticism is criticism, and a sharp tongue isn't reason enough to try to
censor viewpoints. Individuals who see it as a problem are more than free
to take action to protect themselves (read: stop listening to them).

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:40:20PM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote:
> >  Negative feedback, respectfully and objectively delivered, should be
> >  embraced as opportunities to improve ourselves, our products and our
> >  services, not shunned and silenced because it points out a flaw.
>
> 1. This.  A hundred times this.
>
> 2. This is why we have RFC 2142 (which specifies role addresses
> such as postmaster@, abuse@, and so on): so that we can easily and
> quickly tell each other when we're screwing up so that it can be fixed.
> This is why all professional and responsible operations maintain those
> addresses, pay attention to what shows up there, read it, analyze it,
> act on it, and respond to it.  This is and has been an instrinic part
> of our operational culture for decades -- even though we all know
> that just about every message ever received via them will be negative.
> (Because nobody's going to drop a line to hostmaster@ noting that our
> DNS servers are all working perfectly.)
>
> A critical presentation is really no different than an email message
> to webmaster@ that points out a 404'd URL.  It's an opportunity to
> fix something and to do better.
>
> ---rsk
>

-- 
Regards,
Paras

President
ProTraf Solutions, LLC
Enterprise DDoS Mitigation