On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > Loudness != majority > > I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics > related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make > rules to assault the few, IMHO.
While I agree with your points in theory, Martin, I would ask that you do an actual analysis of useful content on NANOG. I did one some months ago based on a week's backlog of Nanog in my mail folder, and found (quoted from an e-mail I sent to someone at the time) > 17 on-topic posts > 133 not useful but not completely off-topic posts > 22 direct personal insult messages (not about whether it was off- > topic) > 42 complaints about off-topic (7 were personal insults) > 357 posts that were better directed at a list specific to the topic > (ie namedroppers) > 57 posts that were someone asking for help who should have used a > phone book/faq/etc > 212 replies of positive encouragement for using nanog as a telephone > resolution service So yes, Martin, in theory I agree with you. But in practice Nanog had twice as many AUP-violating direct personal insults as content specific to NANOG, and both of those were the hard minority of posts. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
