[AusNOG] Moderated/Vetted AusNOG list to reduce the guff (was Re: Understanding lack of Aus connectivity to melbournefreeuniversity.org.)
Tim March
march.tim at gmail.com
Sun Apr 14 18:00:11 EST 2013
My thoughts on this thread in no particular order;
1. I think someone mentioned recently that list membership was somewhere
up around 2500 people. If those of you who are whinging so loudly about
this one think you can create another with a greater collective brains
trust then why don't you do it. For that matter, why don't you put your
money where your mouths are and unsubscribe from this one?
Bye... Enjoy your utopian nirvana of intellectual purity.
2. Are you honestly suggesting that, despite being of only the deepest
blue NOC blood, you're unable to operate the filtering functionality of
your respective clients? I'll give you 8 seconds of free consulting time;
1. https://www.mozilla.org/EN/thunderbird/
2. Tools -> Message Filters
3. Rejoice, safe in the knowledge that the filthy proles will never
befoul your mail reader again with unwarranted and unwelcome opinions
3. Of all the "I've got IP's at $90812734123^999 a pop" and "Posting to
a public list to ask how to contact my service manager makes me feel
better about myself than actually picking up my phone and doing it"
threads, this one is by far the most useless.
Respect--
T.
On 14/04/13 12:48 PM, Kim Davies wrote:
> In my experience, what is far more damaging to a list's usefulness is
> not the occasional marginally off-topic thread, but rather the death
> spiral of meta-discussions about how the list is run. Forking the list
> seems to me more likely to make the overall situation worse, because
> you'll then have people copying in multiple lists to ensure their
> audience, and those that are on more than one list get bombarded with
> redundant copies. A sizeable chunk of this community I think has already
> seen this with the proliferation of "aussie-isp" lists.
>
> kim
> (admittedly, not sure if he'd qualify the entrance exam for a closed list)
>
> On Apr 13, 2013, at 7:07 PM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au
> <mailto:markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>> wrote:
>
>> The problem I have with "Leave it as it is and ignore the fluff" is
>> that that takes effort that I'd much rather (and if the list becomes
>> to full of fluff, will) put into other things. If people walk away
>> because they can't be bothered spending the effort to filter out the
>> fluff, then the list has lost the value that their experience and
>> contributions brings.
>>
>> The whole point of the world having different interest groups and on
>> the Internet separate mailing lists is so that you don't have to put
>> effort into ignoring things that aren't of interest. That is why there
>> is a list charter, and that is why people are forced to read it before
>> subscribing, and why it is sent out every month. I think it is unfair
>> to ask the volunteer moderators to read and then moderate lots emails
>> when the responsibility to comply with the charter is that of the
>> person who sends themr. If people can't control themselves, and forget
>> that by sending an email they're creating effort and an interruption
>> to all the recipients on the list (which may and is likely to number
>> in the 100s), then other controls need to be put in place.
>>
>> I've been thinking about the idea of a vetted list for more than a
>> year. I don't particularly have a problem with lurkers who are
>> interested to learn either. As I suggested, LinkedIn or similar are a
>> way to perform a basic vetting of somebody's experience and/or
>> knowledge. Somebody who might not have network operator experience or
>> knowledge, but being vouched for by somebody who does would also be
>> reasonable.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Phill Groom <pgroom at gmail.com <mailto:pgroom at gmail.com>>
>> *To:* "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>"
>> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 14 April 2013 10:30 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Moderated/Vetted AusNOG list to reduce the
>> guff (was Re: Understanding lack of Aus connectivity to
>> melbournefreeuniversity.org <http://melbournefreeuniversity.org>.)
>>
>> I'v been in the industry in both Australia and New Zealand for
>> more years than I care to remember. Some of the
>> prominent contributors to this list know exactly who I am and
>> what I do/have done, however most of the current contributors
>> would not.
>>
>> If membership of this list were to be vetted then who gets to be
>> "God" and how do those people decide who is "in" and who is "out"?
>> Have to have at least one AS registered in your name? I've never
>> had any in my own name however I've been responsible for some
>> pretty well known ones. Have to have a .net email address? I have
>> tons of those but I don't work on any of those networks at the
>> moment. Check your Linkedin profile/friends? Mine says what I have
>> done and where I am but that could all be made up and total
>> garbage. Rely on word of mouth among other "trusted" contributors?
>> What about the little guy who has never been heard of but who may
>> have control over an AS that could potentially bring down or
>> seriously affect one of the big guys or their customers?
>>
>> I have worked for one of the ISP's that probably is mentioned more
>> on this list than any other for over 30 years however I don't
>> currently have operational control over that network. I manage a
>> customers network. Working for that ISP might be enough to qualify
>> me for membership of the list but should I be a member when I
>> don't have operational or administrative control at the moment?
>>
>> This list is an amazing resource. Leave it as it is and ignore the
>> fluff (as many of you will probably do with this post!).
>>
>> Phill.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Tom Paseka <tom at cloudflare.com
>> <mailto:tom at cloudflare.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not against a more closed, vetted list.
>>
>> Agree that moderation is silly.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Joshua D'Alton
>> <joshua at railgun.com.au <mailto:joshua at railgun.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with that is it might take 3 hours to get a
>> post moderated. I'd say that is a long time for networks
>> to not be able to 'fix' things. People probably wouldn't
>> bother and would just use IRC or skype or plain email to
>> the contacts they've found through ausnog.
>>
>> Are there really that many threads (not posts, threads) on
>> here taking up peoples time to the extent they feel this
>> is necessary?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Phillip Grasso
>> <phillip.grasso at gmail.com
>> <mailto:phillip.grasso at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Most of topics aren't unreasonable, thoughts on setup
>> a smaller list that is concentrated / moderated etc.
>>
>> I like the format
>>
>> ausnog (mostly network operators).
>> ausnog-ops (moderated list australian network operators).
>> ausnog-jobs (jobs posting).
>> ausnog-trades (sales/buying, trades, borrowing parts
>> etc).
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Mark Smith
>> <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au
>> <mailto:markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>> wrote:
>>
>> Once off vetting, and then having people control
>> themselves is going to be far less moderation
>> effort than having a small set of moderators have
>> to read each and every email and hit some of them
>> on the head. The threat of losing your
>> privilege of being able to participate should be
>> enough to make people moderate themselves, or
>> quickly stop if they are told by others that
>> they've crossed the line.
>>
>> If issues such as this one need to get into the
>> public domain, they will indirectly.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* James Hodgkinson <yaleman at ricetek.net
>> <mailto:yaleman at ricetek.net>>
>> *To:* "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>"
>> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 14 April 2013 8:49 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [AusNOG] Understanding lack of
>> Aus connectivity to
>> melbournefreeuniversity.org
>> <http://melbournefreeuniversity.org/>.
>>
>> No reason to start a new list or "vet" people
>> onto it, just get some moderators who slap
>> down threads and make sure it stays on-topic :)
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> On 13 April 2013 18:28, Bevan Slattery
>> <bevan at slattery.net.au
>> <mailto:bevan at slattery.net.au>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: McDonald Richards
>> <McDonald.Richards at vocus.com.au
>> <mailto:McDonald.Richards at vocus.com.au>>
>> Date: Saturday, 13 April 2013 5:39 PM
>> To: Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com
>> <mailto:danny at spesh.com>>
>> Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>"
>> <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>>, Nathan
>> Nogic <nathan at mds.au.com
>> <mailto:nathan at mds.au.com>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Understanding lack
>> of Aus connectivity to
>> melbournefreeuniversity.org
>> <http://melbournefreeuniversity.org/>.
>>
>> > The lack of response is less about conspiracy and more about apathy.
>>
>> Yeah – However, my apathy is not because
>> of journos but because Ausnog is no longer
>> a network operators group, but a splinter
>> of Whirlpool.
>>
>> It feeling like trying to have an
>> discussion of the NBN in a Whirlpool
>> thread in 2010/11. Anyone for a true
>> Network Operators Group email list? This
>> is just tiring and filling up my inbox…
>>
>> [b]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
More information about the AusNOG
mailing list