Re: Fwd: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC
> From: Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Oct 30, 2007 2:33 PM > Subject: [nanog-admin] Vote on AUP submission to SC > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sorry for the delay, I was catching up with RL things after nanog. > > I'd like to call for a vote on modified AUP to be submitted to SC. We've > already voted on each specific thing, but haven't voted on > full AUP. > > 1. Discussion will focus on Internet operational and technical issues > as described in the charter of NANOG. > 2. Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. > 3. Cross posting is prohibited. > 4. Postings that include foul language, character assassination, and > lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. > 5. Product marketing is prohibited. > 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are > prohibited. > 7. Using list as source for private marketing initiatives is prohibited > 8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster > are prohibited. > > I'd like to draw your attention particularly to #8 - while we agreed on > policy to forbid autoresponders, we haven't voted on the specific language > on it. I think the above is short and simple enough. > > Differences from previous AUP: > > Clause #3: crossposting is prohibited instead of discouraged. > > Clause #5: instead of "blatant product marketing is discouraged" we have > "product marketing is prohibited". > > Clause #6: political etc postings are prohibited instead of discouraged. > > Clause #7 "Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable > names and addresses, rather than aliases." is removed. > > New clause #7: "Using list as source for private marketing initiatives is > prohibited." is added. > > New clause #8: "Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the > poster are prohibited." > > Thanks. > > -alex i find "prohibited" to be unnecessarily strong. looks pretty much as expected from meeting and discussion between sc and mlc. though i knwo it's a pita, it's great to see mlc getting act together on the administrivia. surprised you posted it to futures as opposed to the mlc chair doing so. randy
Re: mail operators list
> The NANOG mailing list has never been in good order. > > The NANOG meetings have always had complaints. > > The NANOG community is composed of disparate parties with disparate > interests, each convinced that their interests are the only ones of > operation relevance. it would all be so much simpler if the humans were removed from the equation. such funny monkeys we. randy
Re: mail operators list
> Mail seems to be one of those topics which is of interest to many nanog > subscribers, but simultaneously annoying to many (presumably different) > nanog subscribers. what large subject does not fall in this category? this is just life when you have a large community. randy
Re: meeting format/content (was: 2 day/budget)
> What I like about the RIPE and APRICOT (and perhaps even ARIN) > conferences apart is that they encourage and invite participation > from the community through the use of tracks and working groups, > while still maintaining a significant number of interesting > presentations for the community as a whole. ok, a constructive suggestion! of course, ripe, arin, apnic, ... have some natural segmentation due to their community's rir orientation. and as i am currently reviewing apricot proposals, i am not overly excited; getting good non-marketing content there seems harder than nanog. but i have not served on the nanog pc for some years, so do not really have a view into specific content submitted there. blah blah. but let's take your suggestion seriously; after all, it's the only one we have received :) > 1/ IPv6. like it or not, in five years, most of us will be running ipv6. and a bunch of us are running it now. i think we could easily fill a day with actual *operator* experience with various aspects of deploying ipv6, problems, solutions, gaps, and work arounds. and no fluff! i am willing to work on this with some folk. > 2/ VOIP. good subject, though i am at the low end of this food chain and thus have a good excuse not to volunteer. > 3/ Video-on-Demand. > 4/ Network Convergence ibid > 5/ Peering, perhaps... we already have a strong sub-culture and sub-meetings on peering. how would you suggest we adapt/focus it to fit in your track idea? perhaps re-frame as inter-provider relations, e.g. some of the technology, not just the social, political, and financial aspects? randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
> Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to > the AUP wrt to being on topic. your complaint to me was not about topic, but rather about ad homina. to quote > And as you know, the NANOG AUP specifically discourages personal > attacks -- which that is. though you do go on to say > Please refrain from off topic posting on the NANOG Mailing List. which does subtly imply, but does not explicitly say, that you also thought my posting off topic. though my real issues revolve around transparency and process, i would note that o it is hard to see how calling joe nacchio a convicted felon is a personal attack; it is a matter of notorious fact o the topic of telstra management and its abuse of its monopoly position would seem to have been relevant to the discussion which had included many references to their abuse and the effect on bandwidth pricing in australia but i am certainly guilty of terseness and obscurity, as well as confusing two ex-cseo of qwest. my apologies. to try to be constructive, what i as a member might like to see in similar circumstances would be something on the order of this is not a formal warning, but, as an individual mlc member, i suspect that your message is personal attack and not on topic. could you please explain where i am perceiving incorrectly or please refrain from such postings? thanks. -- marty this would have been very clear as to the formality of the message, and have allowed discussion and explantation. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
alex is correct, this is about process and transparency; or at least that was my intent. while i am rather averse to unnecessarily large, complex, and formal process, when lack thereof may be leading to unfair treatment, my 50s/60s heritage rises sufficiently to make me willing to suffer more formality. to clarify (and stealing from another message) o my comment was not at all about australia's history as a penal colony. i did not even think of it at the time, and did not think of it until joelja mentioned it just now (for a tokyo version of just now). o my comment was about the insane management and monopoly position of telstra and their abuse of that position. ask an australian isp about it. sorry it was so terse and obscure to north americans. o my getting very formal about the message from marty was about my fears about the mlc process or lack thereof, lack of transparency, etc. this is not new. marty did not make clear the level or formality of his message, something that has been an issue in mlc messages for a long time. and when i asked if it was formal, assuming it was so because it had been cc:d to the sc ($deity knows why), rob said yes it could be taken that way. my worry is that similar things have happened to others and no one is telling us. there is a severe lack of mlc transparency; and this was the core of what the revolution a few years back was about. are memebers being intimidated or otherwise treated unfairly, likely often without intent? i do not buy the caesar's wife argument. it is hard to believe that the membership did not know they elected an irascible, albeit principled, old fool; i have been pretty wysiwyg geek for more decades than most of the membership has been alive. i would say that folk could choose not to vote for me next time, but i will not be running as i will have reached my term limit; and i have certainly given at the office. if it was just marty being on a piss off about me, then no big deal; i can handle marty (and certainly am in no position to abuse him for being hot-headed). but if the mlc is sending undocumented and non-consensus reprimands, warnings, and threats to people and their perceived management, then i have a problem. and if it is the latter, then i am, as usual, willing to be the sacrificial lamb to expose it. while i may not have been thrown out of better places than this, i have been thrown out of here before. :) and now, if you will excuse me, i have to pretend that i work for a living. randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
Jim Popovitch wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > Considering it was made at 2AM i am in tokyo randy
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Re: mlc files formal complaint against me
< dunce cap on > irrelevant to the mlc action, but ... as someone just pointed out to me, i was confusing two ex-ceos of qwest, joe nacchio, who is a convicted felon, with sol trujillo, who is not, but is currently the ceo of telstra. apologies. randy
mlc files formal complaint against me
< no sc hat at all > the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio (apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public figure; hence, even if what i said was untrue, which it is not, he is not a protected person. i have appealed the mlc's formal complaint to the sc. < sc hat on > but i am extremely interested in finding out how many people receive similar or analogous reprimands from the mlc, and what form they take e.g., their complaint against me was cc:d to the sc, and, as an sc member, i have never seen others. randy --- Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:43:09 +0900 From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Martin Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas? > AU's infrastructure has a long been a quagmire of political fumbling and > organised chaos. hey, i thought it was great of you folk to take joe nacio, convicted felon, off our hands. randy
Re: More wiki questions...
Lynda wrote: > I just hate politics, hurt feelings, and other stuff, so I'm asking here > first. There's a nice NANOG 40 link on the front of the Wiki, but that's > over. I'm thinking it ought not to disappear, but rather move off to a > Prior NANOG Meetings (there's some great links to restaurants that I'd > hate to see lost, and other useful stuff as well). Then there could be a > NANOG 41 link instead (or perhaps a Current Meeting, which would lead > off to NANOG 41 for now). sounds cool! good not to lose that stuff. > It's also my intent to look at the old FAQ, see what's missing in the > Wiki (and there are some things, for better or worse, that might be), > and put it all in one spot. Then, I really, really, really think that > the FAQ ought to go away, to be entirely replaced by the Wiki (which is > now far more up to date). seems like a plan randy
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
> I do care, because if we had a large "local" contingient that > would not be present in some other locale, eg: DR, PR, etc.. indeed. we should work to serve them, considering they are just as first class members as those folk in goddess-forsaken places such as michegan about which my corporate travel folk give me pain, "you need to go where?". let me be very clear about my personal opinion. if we held a meeting in havana and 300 folk from the latin and caribbean part of our family showed and only 100 of us nortes, i would consider it a success in serving our membership. > we know that in some locations (eg: bay area) causes population > spikes. clearly some of us know that. others of us look at the actual meeting attendance statistics for the last bay area meeting and know that is very incorrect 'knowledge'. that meeting was a financial disaster and had very poor attendance. > If we then have only 200 people attend nanog in DR, I consider that > a quite serious issue that you're potentially overlooking. which might be why the sc is asking on this forum. randy
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
>>> perhaps we saw a huge attendance dip at Toronto >> the opposite > even for non-canada source? i'm sure we saw .ca spike, but did > we see .us dip? i have no idea and don't care. aside from their strange habit of saying "eh" every so often, which they seem not to do in email, i consider them just as significant nanog participants as residents of the united states. randy
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
> I don't know how many people that attended NANOG in Toronto had to go > through the "international travel approval" that some of us had to. probably not the canadians. this is NAnog, not USnog, so that's just gonna be a fact of life. > perhaps we saw a huge attendance dip at Toronto the opposite randy
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
> One of the reasons why these spots are in the LACNIC region > is language. They don't speak english. OH MY GHOD! HEATHENS! let's bomb them quickly. this conversation is becoming downright embarrassing. randy
Re: Throwing out the NANOG AUP
> Folks used to complain that the mailing list has become useless, too many > msgs, too much noise, not much hate, etc. but we don't really have a way to > measure the utility of the list. It is too bad we don't have a way to vote > thumbs up or thumbs down on msgs. Could we implement something like that? even if all other obstacles were removed, too many of us have those which would likely get the most negative votes procmailed on the list. of course, the fun thing would be to do some studies of procmail and other filters. randy
Re: Throwing out the NANOG AUP
> Now, did we reach any solutions in this thread? easy, we can's shut you up without being more draconian than we would like to be. so we have all procmailed you, and hope that those few who have not will resist replying to you. randy
Re: Throwing out the NANOG AUP
> The vast majority of people who've received a polite request to > moderate the content or character of their postings have cheerfully > complied. On the balance, polite requests by the MLC have been > overwhelmingly effective as indicated by the extremely small number of > people who have had their posting privileges suspended since the > greater community involvement began post-nanog32. > > There will always be a few corner cases who respond by accusing the > MLC of abuse of power, gushing forth a second-person stream of > obscenities, claiming a personal vendetta, stating vociferously that > they intend to ignore future emails from the MLC, etc. Have gotten > all of those, usually more than one at a shot, from more than one > person. Can't really do anything about the 1%ers other than grin and > bear it. fwiw, i think the mlc is doing a great and pretty thankless job. some days, e.g. today, i wish you were taking a less conservative approach, as, due to being on the sc, i feel obliged _not_ to procmail [0] folk such gadi and michael on this particular list. and the amount of rubbish they promulgate is as bad as the stock tip spam. but then i remember the bad old days, and figure tolerating a bit of arrogant clueless babble is a minor annoyance. hang in there. you're doing a great job. randy --- [0] - recipe follows: ) * !^(To|Cc):.*(nanog-futures|steering)@nanog.org $TRASH -30-
Re: Is there another NANOG somewhere?
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45167.html is about volume. for me, it's not the volume, per se. it is the shameless and (should be) embarrassing self-promotion, the copying and reposting of others' ideas and work, ... and it's not only gadi, but he makes such a good example. randy
RE: Is there another NANOG somewhere?
>> there's Full Disclosure (another place where I have Gadi kill filed), > Are you sure this isn't your own personal issue? yes
Re: Super Bowl Sunday February 4th
[ note ml cc: switched to -futures ] > The last time Super Bowl fell on a NANOG (NANOG 15) a local redneck put a bullet through the nearest atm machine, if i remember aright. this nanog, we'll be in a strange socialist country, where they seem not to realize that the ability to be armed for murder and mayhem is an inalienable right, but health care is seen as one. strange people, strange customs. maybe it's the climate. > Is there anything organized for the Super Bowl on Sunday Night? go to a hockey game?!?!? :) randy
Re: Reasons for attendance drop off
>> this statement is somewhat inaccurate. the sc has made no such >> decision. the sc has been listening to the membership on this one, as >> is the sc's wont, and the membership has been pretty divided on it. >> hence the sc has not made a change, but is still open to it. > Randy, thanks for the clarification. > Wasn't this issue supposed to make the last election? uh, i only hacked a small part of the ballot, the ml committee bit, so did not track as well as i might have. but my memory is that we keep asking it on the survey. you did fill out the survey, didn't you? :) it may be best wait for daytime stateside and let someone with more functional neurons respond. randy
Re: Reasons for attendance drop off
> If you agree that cutting cost is a secondary component to fixing > the root cause, why not start with the root cause? let's all please do work on root cause(s), but ... that set of attacks on the problem, and the set that revolve on more sponsor income, are not sure bets. they are experiments on which will will do our best, but will likely learn more as we progress. in the meantime, we have a bleeder on our hands [0]. so, while we try to manage expenses and work on root cause issue(s), we have one pretty sure way of keeping the patient viable, raise the meeting fee. and, as aviva said, and holds for other meetings i attend, nanog at $450 is well below mean. but yes, let's definitely also focus on root cause(s). perhaps think of this thread as the sc saying we have chosen this immediate means to stabilize the beastie and could we all please work on how to get it singing and dancing. randy -- [0] - not that it is a deeply sick animal. remember, a significant part of the shortfall is that we are trying to book further out and thus need to advance more cash.
Re: Reasons for attendance drop off
Don Welch, Merit Network wrote: > Reducing to two meetings per year means we lose some economy of scale > and would have to raise the price further. Regardless, we looked at > this option and the SC felt there was a need for 3 meetings per year - > so here we are. this statement is somewhat inaccurate. the sc has made no such decision. the sc has been listening to the membership on this one, as is the sc's wont, and the membership has been pretty divided on it. hence the sc has not made a change, but is still open to it. randy
Re: Increase in NANOG Meeting Attendance Fees
impossible to compare ripe and nanog. ripe meetings are rir meetings and subsidized by ripe/ncc, which has a monopoly on ip address space. in north america, nanog is separate from arin. imiho, this is a very good thing. same in africa. randy
Re: FYI - PC and review transparency vs anonymity
> Seeing the rationale for rejecting the talk, I swore the reviewers > must have looked at a different talk ! this is a fact of life submitting papers. happens regularly with academic pcs. i had a paper rejected for a puny conference that was then accepted for sigcomm this year. go figure. > 1) If people have the energy and time to contribute, they ought to be > encouraged to do so. yep. but encouragement != acceptance. do not make the pc a rubber stamp > 2) It is in the best interests of the community, from a long term > perspective, to help develop these people with the inclination to > contribute, and to help develop their presentations and ensure their > continued willingness to contribute into the future. and apple pie is wonderful, especially with vanilla ice cream. > 3) The shepparding of *all* reasonably interesting talk ideas should > be part of the process. agreed > Among people whose talks were rejected in the past, > A) only a couple of them turned in presentation abstracts again, > B) some don't attend NANOG again, soured by the experience or perhaps > feeling that they clearly don't belong in this crowd, and/or > C) relationships between the submitter and the members of the reviewer > panel are strained this is also a fact of life with pc-driven conferences. the question is whether the talk was mis-judges not whether the submitter had a delicate ego. > I don't think we are doing enough to actively go out and get good > talks, sheppard the next generations of speakers, and grow the > NANOG community. i agree. we are doing a lot, but, judging by the small number of good submissions not enough. either that, or nanog's days for conference material have passed. > A) Accountability. The program committee members each have to > find and assemble 90 minutes of talks for the program at least > once a year. there are good recruiters. there are good reviewers. there are good shepherds. the three sets are rarely congruent. > B) Transparency. The speaker prospects have the opportunity to > have frank brainstorming and discussion session with the Program > Committee member that is ultimately responsible for their > section. The Program Committee person will know what the speaker > will say, why the talk is important, and will ensure that if the > talk is rejected, the rejected speaker will understand why the > talk was rejected. this is shepherding, not transparency. it is good if done well. if done poorly, very easy with a belligerent wannabe speaker with ego, it can be a recipe for explosion. > C) Leverage the Expertise and People Network of the Program > Committee. The charter currently says that all PC members will > review all talks, a mistake in my opinion. given the small number of talks, not a large mistake. and it gets us diverse expertise looking at the papers. if we had 2x, 3x, or more submissions, this would be an undue burden. randy
Re: FYI - PC and review transparency vs anonymity
>Dear SIGCOMM SIG Member, > > There seems to be a direction toward PC transparency elsewhere so > maybe its not crazy to suggest increased transparency in the NANOG PC. it is not the internal review. it is a new, separate, marketing piece. randy
Re: The year gone by: The PC
a. losing the research component was a mistake (can kc come back?) uh, has dr feamster, jen's replacement, not published enough good ops-oriented research to satisfy you? b. there are continued politics as exemplified by the Feamster appointment which was justified as 'not precluded in the Charter', but it was still an inadequate response considering they could've just waited a few more weeks. great. reconcile this with your previous point. randy
