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

Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then
proposing artificial self-serving "compromises"
is one of the oldest
games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to
the
invention of Usenet.  At the risk of playing a small role in
this
instance, as a longtime lurker I simply point out the
predictable
failure pattern here.

Fred

----------------
>
>Basically, there is a crowd that says only network
related stuff, say,
>trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them alone)
would be interested
>in, is on topic.
>
>Others say there are other issues which are oprations
related and
>of interest to them. We are split.
>
>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.
>
>Thus, the compromise idea is that for now and for a
predetermined period
>of time, we start with one small change. Debugging is
done one step at a
>time rather than in earthshattering moves.
>
>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.
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Gadi.
>
>

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Fred Heutte wrote:
> 
> Creating consternation around boundary conditions and
then
> proposing artificial self-serving
"compromises" is one of the oldest
> games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much
to the
> invention of Usenet.  At the risk of playing a small
role in this
> instance, as a longtime lurker I simply point out the
predictable
> failure pattern here.

Please join us on NANOG-futures than and help either flame,
or come up
with something to move us forward.


	Gadi.

> 
> Fred
> 
> ----------------
> >
> >Basically, there is a crowd that says only network
related stuff, say,
> >trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them
alone) would be interested
> >in, is on topic.
> >
> >Others say there are other issues which are
oprations related and
> >of interest to them. We are split.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Thus, the compromise idea is that for now and for a
predetermined period
> >of time, we start with one small change. Debugging
is done one step at a
> >time rather than in earthshattering moves.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >	Gadi.
> >
> >
> 
>