The changes that people are discussing have little to do with
"what is" and "what isn't" on topic for the NANOG mailing list.
On/off topic is very relevant, since it determines moderator involvement. Many people feel moderation is broken, and topical candidates are an element of it. Seeing post after post from people who feel they've been unfairly sanctioned, or having clueful users appearing on virtual milk cartons is a problem. Fix it.
What it does have lots to do with is cooperating on examination of the moderation and testing the current long-standing techniques to determine if they need to be re-vamped to reflect sentiments of the community at large.
Cooperation would be nice, yes, but that's a two way street. I should point out that long-standing/traditional are not generally the best. The long-standing technique is distinctly one-way.
I am interested in discussing the possibilities of self-policing
the list. An example would be when I suggested you earn some stripes.
I said it. You ignored it. I opened my killfile. You land on it.
That's much simpler.
And I'm sorry to say it, but that's close minded xenophobia. I'm generally fine to lurk on the list and soak up clue on subjects in which I'm not an expert, and keep tabs on relevant inter-network issues that affect the network operations I'm responsible for. There generally aren't many discussions on this list that involve my particular technical skillset, so I do my part by not contributing noise.
Frankly, not posting seems to be the safest option, and you're certainly fostering that notion by treating me like some random newbie with a shiny new cable modem and vanity domain. I certainly don't think my relatively few posts have been other than clear and to the point, or anything less than focused on finding, or contributing, to possible solutions.
Writing complicated rules and creating a Politburo-like atmosphere
is in no-ones interest.
This isn't about writing complicated rules. Complicated rules are what I put in my log analyzers. This is about curtailing abuse, and maintaining an effective list. I haven't posted anything so far that requires detailed, multi-section by laws, riders, addendums, references to the previous question, calls for quorum or blood samples and biometrics for authentication of all posts. I've asked for a simple, clear measuring stick of what's valid for posting, and more importantly, what's valid for moderator action. Troubleshooting 101: Identify the problem, find and plan a solution, have a backout plan, then fix it.
Going offtopic, but staying germaine to the environment:
If my stripes are really of that much interest to you, my background includes enterprise network management tools development, including network inventory design (using flexible SNMP pollers capable of abstracting nonhomogenous vender OID sets), scalable distributed>aggregated syslog analyzers. I've also done complex network troubleshooting from the wire up, many aspects of hands-on network construction, and in-the-field troubleshooting (you know, where the customer stands over your shoulder while you work.) You can even find tools with my prototypical handiwork lurking inside them in places that would likely surprise you.
Is that better? Is it safe for me to post now? Or do I need to submit a DNA sample, polygraph, and twelve professional references along with my resume? Just because I don't tout my clue, doesn't mean I don't have one.
This list is a tool. I use it, other people use it. I have as much interest in this list being a functional part of my library of resources as anyone else here. If you think I don't belong because I'm not an active poster, I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong. From my perspective, you're looking down your nose at me because I'm an unknown element, and/or I don't have some shiny prestigious domain in my email address. I post have to say because *I'm* saying it, not my employer.
If you want to continue taking non-productive shots at me, we can continue this conversation offlist.