On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:57:07PM +0300, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Fellow NANOG-ers.
>
> I am very happy eith the recent revival of traffic on NANOG on relevant
> subjects, as I am sure we all are. My email is about traffic we don't
> see and unless I am missing something, don't know gets filtered. due to
> what I believe is very heavy-handed moderation by the admin team.
>
> First, is this a known issue? If so, please point me to the right clause
> at the AUP and ignore the rest of my message as misinformed.
>
> My concerns are, as I will demonstrate in this message:
>
> 1. Threads are moderated with no notice to person or mailing
> list, or availability for examination.
>
> 2. There is no apparent over-sight (that I know of) on this
> moderation, or visibility.
>
> 3. It is very heavy-handed high-key moderation, which is not
> what we ask for on NANOG as far as I understand, unless there
> was a policy change.
>
> 4. Non of this is covered in the AUP. Not thread moderation, not
> the decision process, not how it can be challenged and not
> where discarded threads can be examined.
>
> 5. The admin team does not respond to requests for information
> or challenges on this matter (I made one).
>
> A week ago I sent in a request for comments to NANOG on how ISPs handle
> phishing on two fronts. Stopping it from reaching clients, and
> experience on notifying clients this is happening.
>
> The above may or may not be off-topic. I will accept for the purpose of
> this discussion that it IS *off-topic*, so that we can concentrate on
> moderation procedures and lack of response to members.
>
> The back story:
> I got 6 responses off-list (by those who CC: OP) which detailed
> operational experience on handling it. Of these, several had NANOG CC:'d
> to the email, and the messages never reached the mailing list.
>
> I believe the responses were operational, and that the request was as
> well. The admins could have mailed us or the list, or even guided us to
> discuss only operational parts of the message. Or wait a day. They
> instead moderated quietly and unilaterally.
>
> For the purpose of this discussion, I indeed accept the discussion was
> off-topic and therefore should not be done on NANOG.
>
> But, unless I am missing something and this is approved and known, such
> moderation is unacceptable.
>
> What IS important?
> People emailed in just to discover that they can't. I personally thought
> I was moderated without any warning.
>
> The AUP clearly states that the admin team has the power to do so, but
> it also discusses a warning process.
>
> Rather than get upset, I emailed and asked the admins about this. I was
> told that it was the thread which was moderated, not us. This happened
> without any of us OR the mailing list OR even (as a ridiculous example)
> nanog-futures being notified.
>
> I emailed back requesting:
>
> 1. That this decision be revisited as obvious, actual,
> operational content was being shared and never reaching the
> mailing list.
>
> 2. More importantly, why is this heavy-handed moderation
> happening, and how is the decision to moderate a thread
> happen?
>
> I never received a reply. I was never told of a different way in which I
> can request this moderation to be re-reconsidered.
>
> If this is acceptable procedure, why is it not listed in the AUP?
> Further, if it should be listed in the AUP, why is a note on how to
> challenge a decision not there?
>
> Perhaps I missed some NANOG meeting minutes, or the AUP was not updated
> to indicate that this was discussed and approved. In that case I do
> apologize.
>
> In summary, unless I am indeed missing some new NANOG guidelines, the
> admin team is actively moderating entire threads without warning or
> visibility, or accountability for that matter. I find this to be very
> disturbing.
>
> Their lack of response when questioned on the subject, is just as
> disturbing.
Gadi,
Some valid points are raised. While additional discussion from
interested folks here is encouraged, suffice to say that the topic
will be on the SC call tomorrow, as we are the folks whom receive
escalation appeals of MLC actions.
Cheers,
Joe
SC Chair
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
