Internic does it again

Jay writes:

Off-topic to nanog.

It appears that the members of the list feel it's a worthy topic for
discussion. Since you obviously don't, and I can just feel Paul
Ferguson and Randy Baker slavering at the bit, I'm going to try asking
this just _one_ more time, and if I don't get an answer within, say, 48
hours, I'm going to start plonking people who yell "off-topic":

       Would an administrator of this list please compose and post a message
       defining in precise terms what topic areas are on- and off-topic for
                              the NANOG mailing list?

Pay careful attention, folks: the AUP is useless. It has not clearly
forbidden _any_ of the topics I've seen people get screamed at about in
the past month, with the sole exception of my bit of (you'll have to
admit: provoked) ventilation a week or so ago, for which I hereby
apologize publically to the parites involved.



The key problem here is people not understanding what
"operational and technical" means in common parlance, I think.
Is InterNIC crashing an operational problem? Yes.
Is InterNIC not responding for some time an operational problem? Maybe...
Until you know why they crashed, it's definitely on topic to be trying
to figure out why and how, if it's affecting operations.

Is it still an operational or technical problem weeks later? No.

InterNIC's failures and flaws are fodder for a number of other
mailing lists related to DNS policy discussions among others.
Except as is operationally relevant, however, they're not appropriate
for NANOG. They generally are only operationally relevant when
something breaks, until it's fixed.

-george william herbert

From the web site:

Mailing list charter & AUP:
# Charter

many NANOG folk wrote RE: Internic does it again:

<much blather deleted to protect the eyes of the innocent>

IMO: I think the NANOG members are bored and need some[body|thing]
to complain about. :slight_smile: Then again its only an opinion and everyone
is entitled to that.

-pete #%^>- flame-on


An _answer_.

And it's even a good one. Thanks, George.

(Course, it _is_ worthy of note that David reopened the topic. :slight_smile:

-- jra