On 29 Jan 2008, at 15:57, Steve Gibbard wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > >> >> Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> And seriously, can we stop with the "if you don't like it, you must >>> volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes" mantra? >> >> Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the >> game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in >> more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to "put >> up" >> to "shut up". > > Speaking as somebody who has "put up" a few times, and who has been > more > recently shutting up most of the time... > >>> For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd >>> strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is >>> too >>> strict and warrants clarification. >> >> Reasonable people may disagree with any particular MLC action, >> however, I don't think that overall policy interpretation is too >> strict right now. > > It seems to me that there are two issues, topicality and quality. > > I'm not generally finding the NANOG list worth reading these days, and > that makes me sad. I don't think I've noticed anything particularly > off-topic recently. The mailing list committee must be doing a > good job > of dealing with that sort of thing. What I am seeing is discussion > threads going on and on and on, long after there's nothing new left to > say. Mostly this seems to be a fairly small group of people who > appear to > feel compelled to voice strong opinions over and over again on > every topic > that comes up, whether it's something they know anything about or > not. I
I think that is evidenced also on nanog-futures. How to measure the true satisfaction of the community I don't know but I don't see evidence that NANOG posts or diversity is decreasing. Is there a problem or is the list just evolving and not everyone likes it? Steve > don't think those people add any value to the discussion, and I don't > think the hordes of people who generally jump in to argue with them > from > different but equally uninformed perspectives do either. But, most > of the > time those people are on-topic. They're just not useful or > interesting. > > I'd be quite happy to see the list administrators going to some of the > most frequent posters and asking them to post less, whether on > topic or > not. > > -Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Nanog-futures mailing list > Nanog-futures@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
