What remains, and when was the last time anyone talked about it? It seems
like any topic that has been brought up over the last few months, SOMEONE
has complained (usually quite loudly) that "this isn't the place for that
topic of discussion".
In the last week, there have been discussions of telco issues (the
"DACS failure" thread) and tools (the "System And Network Monitoring"
thread) that seem to have been generally received as on-topic.
For all the topics that are regarded as being on-topic, there's a
common aspect: they affect multiple providers. Telco issues. Tool
issues. Vendor issues. Natural disaster issues. A given provider may
have problems in their interior that affects lots of users, but that's
still a problem with a single provider and not necessarily relevant to
the list; one might consider exceptions like when the host is a root
name server, but user complaints that they can't reach a web server
are not well-received because there's an obvious place (a NOC) to go
to report the problem to people who are paid to do something about it.
Judging by the number of topics that have actually NOT received the vocal
opposition (a paltry few that they were), it seems the mailing list should
amount to like, what?, two messages a month maybe?
I'd MUCH prefer two meaningful messages to a dozen complaints from
people who don't know how to contact a NOC or configure DNS.
Something's not right with that...
Something's *definitely* not right with NANOG being used as a
substitute for contacting a NOC for problems that are plainly within
the interior of a single network. Interprovider issues that require
cooperation between providers have generally been better received by
the list than complaints from *users* that they can't reach a web
server.
Stephen
In the last week, there have been discussions of telco issues (the
"DACS failure" thread) and tools (the "System And Network Monitoring"
thread) that seem to have been generally received as on-topic.
But why WAS the System and Network Monitoring thread on-topic? As the
"creator" of that topic, I'd like to think it was, but in reality, all it
would really "affect" is a single provider. Asking how someone else
monitors their internal network is very similar to asking someone how they
configure their DNS server.
I'm not saying that you're WRONG. My point here is that we really don't
have any clear-cut guidelines. The old adage about "if I can't program it
into my router, its not valid" would certainly flunk out the Monitoring
topic, that's for sure, since the main thrust of the request was how to
monitor individual servers (albeit about a thousand of them).
I'd MUCH prefer two meaningful messages to a dozen complaints from
people who don't know how to contact a NOC or configure DNS.
Agreed. I'd much prefer low-volume-high-signal to the opposite.
I just think we have a "charter" as it were that is a little too vague, and
leaves too much up for debate as to what is on/off-topic.
I mean, you can state what you did about what you think is on/off-topic,
and I might agree with you, but the charter is much more vague, and leads
itself to ambiguity.
I hate rules and regulations as much as the next guy, but I think it needs
to be spelled out somewhere much more clearly than it already is. That's all.
My point wasn't to claim that the Exodus topic necessarily WAS on-topic,
but that there's nothing that clearly states it WASN'T. Ya follow?
D
For all the topics that are regarded as being on-topic, there's a common
aspect: they affect multiple providers. Telco issues. Tool issues. Vendor
...
another way to look at it:
perhaps a web page which 'charters' the nanog list and defines the
scope/nature of its intended discussions will help to avoid future
misunderstandings?
perhaps a version of the text of your note would be an excellent draft for
that charter?
d/
Already in place (<http://www.nanog.org/aup.html>); note also the
pre-posting guide referenced on that page. Just in case there's some
confusion (and until it can be made perfectly obviously in the charter):
Please do not use the Nanog mailing list as a NOC of first resort.
This absolutely does not scale.
/John