Paul Vixie wrote:
I am uncomfortable having folks from the nanog-reform
community accepting responsibility for provisional
moderation (a form of interim governance),
So am I. However, I will point out that these individuals have acted
with precipitation (which is the correct term to use when something
happens in a matter of days) and without any kind of endorsement or
mandate from the nanog-reform community. See below about the position of
the nanog-reform community.
Perception isn't *actually* reality,
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a
hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
I could live with Paul's phrasing, as long as it is understood in the
context I wrote it:
but in politics (which this is) the difference between
perception and reality is just not worth discussing.
For the record, with regard to mailing-list moderation (BTW, we call
this mailing-list administration now), the collective position of the
nanog-reform community can be found in two places:
1. http://www.nanog-reform.org/
List Administration Group
Ideally, we would like to see the NANOG mailing list run itself,
with peer pressure or self-policing used to keep things on topic.
Since we recognize that there may at some point be cases where
that doesn't work, there should also be a list administration
group with the ability to deal with extreme cases. The list
administrators should be selected by the board, and should follow
policies set by the board. They should be people with an
understanding of network operations and what constitutes on-topic
and appropriate discussions. Attempts should be made to steer
discussions back on-topic, and to determine whether somebody is
really being disruptive, before any enforcement action is taken.
There should be thorough public records of any enforcement actions
2.
http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
7.2.2 Mailing List Administrator Selection
The steering committee will select the administrators of the NANOG
mailing list (discussed further in 8.1.2).
8.1.2 Mailing List Administration The nanog-l will be administered
and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the
bylaws drafters should draft, and they should be separate.
It's the usual difference between the Chair and the Editor
(or Raporteur, or Recording Secretary).
Being one of the "bylaws drafters" I agree with this.
Michel.
It should be noted that Michel is speaking only for himself, and not for
the nanog-reform group (and I haven't seen any concensus among the
nanog-reform group yet on the draft bylaws that Michel is referring to).
I am also speaking only for myself on this.
I'd been waiting to hear that the nanog-futures list had actually been
created before urging that this discussion move there. Since it sounds
like it has been, now would probably be a good time to move the
discussion.
-Steve
*agree*
There still needs to be a formal announcement, for those who may
be interested but are ignoring this thread. I'll leave that to
the current governors, though, 'cause it's not my place.
[for those not reading nanOg-reform, this is a
hidden reference to my yesterday's post]
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have
a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but
old news.
http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that
site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
--Michael Dillon
Reading nanog-reform? Is there some kind of list? Let me have
a look at http://www.nanog-reform.org. Nope, nothing here but
old news.
The nanog-reform list was announced both on nanog@ and
during the Sunday night meeting in Vegas. It is a public list.
> http://www.nanog-reform.org/cgi-bin/twiki/view/NANOGReform/DraftBylaws
Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that
site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
I wouldn't really classify a set of draft bylaws that are being
constantly discussed on a mailing list that has been publicly announced,
that live on a web site that anyone can read or post changes to, as
"hidden away." Particularly when any complete set of bylaws would be
voted on anyway.
People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the
thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
--msa
> Aha! So there really is more stuff hidden away on that
> site for the chosen few. Perception is reality, eh?
People, please, gain some perspective here. Nobody wants the
thankless job of maintaining a mailing list that badly.
Perhps I'm being too subtle here. I fully realize that
all these irregularities are the result of incompetence and
not of malice. But, as Paul Vixie wisely pointed out,
in the realm of politics, perception equals reality.
If something is not completely in the open then people
tend to believe that there are nefarious plotters doing
backroom deals to sieze power.
The i's need to be dotted and the t's need to be crossed.
If there is really a nanog-reform mailing list associated
with nanog-reform.org then put information about it on
the website. Move the petition signers to a secondary page.
Put a link to (and explanation of) the wiki on the
nanog-reform.org homepage.
If there really is an archive of nanog-futures then put
information about it on the website.
If there really are some interim results as reflected
by the several emails on the NANOG list, then put this
info on the nanog-reform.org website.
Dot the i's. Cross the t's.
The community to which NANOG addresses itself is only
partially represented by this mailing list and even less
represented by the NANOG meetings themselves. There are
many, many IP network operators in North America (and
elsewhere) who would benefit from greater cooperation
and communication through a medium like NANOG. In order
to reach out to them, we have to stop posting in cryptic
language and assuming that everyone is part of the in-crowd
and knows how to find that one reference to a nanog-reform
list buried somewhere in the archives of this mailing list.
This is not an attack on any one person but rather a general
comment on behavior which is widespread on this list.
It's the middle of the noughties now and the Internet has
grown up. We need to move on and restructure our forums and
organizations to better meet the needs of the industry
and the IP network operations community.
--Michael Dillon
Arhchive here michael:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/
not sure if its complete yet but i know merit are trying to include the first
few messages
nanog-reform here:
http://mailarchive.oct.nac.net/nanog-reform/maillist.html
again, dont know how complete it is. understand also, the list has been open to
subscriptions, the reason for creating it was to allow a bunch of people to kick
some ideas around before airing them and getting into a mess of discussions much
like what we have now.
we saw this successful in vegas with the community forum and the document on the
nanog-reform site was well put together.
what we have now is what happens when 5000 people try to negotiate which is many
varying opinions, vocal people getting more airtime than they ought to when
their opinions are only their opeinions and nnot necessarily the opinions of any
large group.
some folks need to write a document, propose it, vote on it and majority
rules.. not everyone will like all of it but its not possible to write a
document that satisfies everyone 100%. i believe thats the aim of the bbylaws
doc - please dont flame it, provide constructive comments, be prepared to
compromise and dont get lost in minutia when the major points have yet to be
fixed.
Steve
And since it an open list (and since I had trouble finding subscription information at the above URL or at www.nanog-reform.org) the following might be useful to others:
To subscribe, send mail to: nanog-reform-subscribe@nac.net
Joe