It has come to my attention that recently several people have been censored
from posting to the nanog@ list.
I find it a bit unusual that from such an open discussion list that
membership would be censored without notice and reason to the rest of the
membership.
I wouldn't normally be the one to post this, but the people who have been
censored in some cases I believe to be extremely valuable people to the
list.
My question is this: When people are removed/censored, be it temporary or
permanent, could we have a notice posted to the membership as to the person,
reason, and duration?
Also, I realize that this sounds odd, could we add an appeals process? The
idea of a single person with unilateral control over such a group, without
taking into consideration the needs and desires of the group, does not seem
fair. I believe that there is need for recourse in this community for a
person who is removed or censored unfairly.
Regards,
Chris Malayter
TDS Telecom - Network Services
Network Management and Operations chris.malayter@tdstelecom.com
Phone: (608) 664-4878
FAX: (608) 664-4644
pfui! unless someone has gone so far off the deep end as to
be seriously impeding any other discussion on the list (google
for "plonk":-), people should not be censored, period. we all
can filter mail as we wish, just as we can bgp announcements.
i submit that this discussion itself should be so unnecessary
that we should be able to severly minimize our indulgence in
it.
although one is inclined to wonder if there actually is a venue
for discussion these offtopic administrative questions. i have a couple
that are now approaching several years old that i've refrained from asking
because i've been warned about offtopic postings a couple of times,
and have been concerned about whether i was going to cross the
offtopic threshold by bringing up the subject of what the offtopic threshold
really was and how it was judged.
richard
(anticipating that this may be my last nanog posting for some time
to come)
Although I have not yet been censored, I have been warned more than once.
I think, generally, Susan tries to do a good job, and, has a tough task
trying to balance SNR, AUP, and, the general tendencies of this crowd of
engineers.
However, while I don't know the names of all the recent "victims", the ones
I know lead me to believe this is a legitimate request on both counts.
Now, Susan, before you decide that I am off topic, let me point out that
I believe, in good faith, that this is an issue requiring coordination.
Further, I believe that it is an issue affecting the future of the NANOG
list, and, that, the viability of NANOG as a forum _IS_ an operational
issue.
