i know it's come up in the past, but i think it's way past time for a new
list for nano's with tighter subscription and posting requirements.
the only reason i haven't unsubscribed to nanog, yet, is everytime i've had
enough of the useless crap, someone actually posts something useful....
I think moderating the group might not be such a bad idea. The only
problem with this would be getting someone who had enough time to actually
moderate the list. I don't know what is going on lately, but it seems
egos and animosity are running rampant on both inet-access and nanog. I
have been caught up in it myself, and for that I apologize.
Regards,
Joseph Shaw - jshaw@insync.net
NetAdmin/Security - Insync Internet Services
Free UNIX advocate - "I hack, therefore I am."
Every once and awhile a message is sent to the list that needs immediate
propogation. A fiber cut notice that might benefit other companies, things
like that. Therefore I'm not sure total moderation would be the right
answer. Maybe moderation for the average-user such as myself and allow
posts from the more active/knowledgable/important people to go right
through without moderation.
Keith
i didn't, and don't, propose a moderated list. i propose a list with some
sort of subscription requirement, at least for the ability post, that will
only allow nano's to post. i also propose that the list be stringently
policed. one warning re: content of your postings, then your ability to
post is revoked.
i'd like to see a list that lives up to the intent of the nanog list, but
w/o all the useless drivel and chatter. if i wanted that, i'd still be
subscribed to inet-access.
*** sjsobol raises his hand
I could be convinced to moderate such a list... I'm running a bunch of 'em
already... 
The constrained-posting approach might solve the dis-satisfactions that
triggered this thread. However, let me suggest two, other approaches to
consider.
1. This was pioneered by Harald Alvestrand, for the IETF main list, and
seems to be quite successful.
The premise to his approach is to run an unofficial, subsidiary list, off
of the main, official one. On its face, it is just a distributor of the
main list. Why subscribe to it? Well, the value-add is that he has
filters in place, according to whatever rules he feels appropriate. What
he feels appropriate, for the IETF list, is to filter out the common
sources of "noise".
Those subscribed to it seem satisfied with the results.
The nice things about this approach are that 1) it doesn't create the
massive burden that moderating does, and 2) it maintain utterly open
participation for the official list and, therefore, doesn't run afoul of
the usual expectations and requirements for open access to the official list.
2. This was pioneered by the "ORSC" folks who are active with the IANA
re-working. I'm not happy with they way they are running their list, but
the idea they are using strikes me as quite good: Create rules for
acceptable conduct on the list. Create an arbitration panel to pass
judgement when someone is claimed to violate those rules. When someone
exceeds the limits in the rules, such as 3 rules violations, they can be
banned from the list.
d/
The NANOG goes through periods of "verbosity",
they seem to correlate with "generations" of
backbone maintainers....
Much like a teenager, when we first enter
the list we know it all... Months/Years later, it is amazing
how much we now *don't* know.....
The Verbosity seems to correlate to this phenomena...
It is my own personal pet theory that we are experiencing the
"Next Generation"..... Give it time, soon they will be as dumb as
the rest of us......
;)
Keith McCallion wrote:
"It's always September, somewhere on the net."
Does anyone know who first said that?
Cheers,
-- jra
Not exactly what you're looking for, as both are discussion-oriented and
don't seem to get much traffic related to network operations, but judging
by your reply address you might or might not be interested in the following
lists:
My heavens!
A list *for* suits, *by* suits, *about* suits...
So, have any of 'em figured out how to post to it yet ?
;)