On May 11, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i, for one, am ready. i have a delete key for messages that do not > interest me. but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors > do not think i should read.
Randy what you are saying makes sense. But you are forgetting the dark side of this behavior. The loudness of the people with nothing useful to say makes it impossible for a lot of technically clueful people to participate. For example, I don't even try to keep up with Nanog. Keeping up with Nanog would take up far far far too many hours a week for me to both hold down a job and spend any reasonable time with my partner, children, etc. Which is why I didn't see your reply until 25 days after you posted it. Because Nanog's lack of useful content gives it an extremely low priority on my list. In theory, if Nanog was topical to its own mission, Nanog would be a "must read every day". I wish. The arguments for censorship are to try and limit the list to useful content to all parties. Your statement about subscribing to the 20 lists which interest you and dumping them all in the same folder is actually a perfect solution (for you). You get to choose which 20 topics interest you. I get to choose a different 20, etc and so forth. We interact on 4 or 5 we have in common and all of the posts on those lists being topical to the list, is a perfect scenario. No, I doubt perfection will ever happen on any of those lists nevermind all. But it's more likely to work than the current "I can barely spell network and my 16-bit ethernet interface on my Redhat linux system isn't working" posts we routinely see on NANOG today. -- 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
