Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Alex Pilosov]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > what was an attempt at consensus for closure on the aup modifications to
> > handle auto-responders, has now taken on the baggage of a few new
> > proposals.  while those new proposals are of interest, it would be cool
> > if we could reach closure on the original point.  to remind folk, i will
> > append alex's original message, which starts the thread at
> > .
> > 
> > there has been one vociferous objector, a number of supporters, some
> > suggestions for refinements, and the usual ho hums.  would anyone *new*
> > care to object/support, especially with new facts or arguments, before
> > the sc puts this on its semi-weekly con cal agenda?
> If I may try to summarize this discussion:
Err, I was clearly trippin'. I was summarizing discussion on the aliases.

Randy himself given a good summary of AUP/autoresponders responses. I
think its fair to say that there's community support, and this proposal
should go through - and the wording suggested by Michael.Dillion seems to
be one that clarifies that only mail to the list itself is subject to
autoresponder policy.

MLC is currently voting on it.

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Alex Pilosov]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote:

> what was an attempt at consensus for closure on the aup modifications to
> handle auto-responders, has now taken on the baggage of a few new
> proposals.  while those new proposals are of interest, it would be cool
> if we could reach closure on the original point.  to remind folk, i will
> append alex's original message, which starts the thread at
> .
> 
> there has been one vociferous objector, a number of supporters, some
> suggestions for refinements, and the usual ho hums.  would anyone *new*
> care to object/support, especially with new facts or arguments, before
> the sc puts this on its semi-weekly con cal agenda?
If I may try to summarize this discussion:

We had a few supporters of the proposed policy (no aliases, first/lastname
required). (david barak, michael dillon)

We've had more people say "we can't care less if there are aliases, as
long as they behave and contribute". (joelja, randy, etaoin, cat okita,
mike hughes)

We've had some people say "let MLC decide individually" (joelja, jabley,
randy, rs, steve gibbard).

We've had bunch of people say "we can't care less, this is a non-issue" 
(pete templin, others)

[Apologies if I put someone in wrong category - I was trying to get a gist 
of each post, and some comments would go in two categories]

[Of course, its not so much the "number" of votes, its the arguments 
presented]

In light of above, I think its safe to presume that the support for this 
proposal is quite weak, so...it is hereby dropped.

It seems the preference is for the 'MLC should decide individually on 
whether each individual alias is acceptable or not'...

-alex

Re: AUP modification

[Pete Templin]

Randy Bush wrote:


for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having folk
adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.


For those of us who want to learn about 24x7 Support Strategies but 
don't care to read about veggie oil and biodiesel as a staffing 
strategy, having folk adjust the subject of a tangential thread is a 
feature.  OK?

Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed

[Randy Bush]

what was an attempt at consensus for closure on the aup modifications to
handle auto-responders, has now taken on the baggage of a few new
proposals.  while those new proposals are of interest, it would be cool
if we could reach closure on the original point.  to remind folk, i will
append alex's original message, which starts the thread at
.

there has been one vociferous objector, a number of supporters, some
suggestions for refinements, and the usual ho hums.  would anyone *new*
care to object/support, especially with new facts or arguments, before
the sc puts this on its semi-weekly con cal agenda?

randy

---

From: alex
Date: Tue Jun 12 01:20:36 2007

A while ago, we've had proposal to formally forbid autoresponders. The
proposed language was to add following to AUP:

   8.  Challenge/response sender whitelisting software which requires
interaction by any party to validate a post to the NANOG mailing list as
non-spam shall be treated by the list administration team like any other
condition that generates a bounce message.  Subscribers with software
(such as but not limited to TMDA) that is (mis)configured in this
fashion are subject to removal from the list without notice, and are
welcome to resubscribe at such time as their software is fixed.

Then, the proposal bounced between MLC, -futures and SC with unclear
result (or rather, result being clear that it wasn't approved). I
*think* the latest revised version is above.

So, if you have any objections to the above, please voice them.

-alex

---

Re: AUP modification

[Randy Bush]

>>> N+1. Replies to list postings that involve a change of topic
>>> shall include a new subject line, with optional reference to the
>>> previous topic, and shall be formatted in such a way as to appear
>>> as a new thread in as many common MUAs as possible.
>> for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having
>> folk adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.
> Unless, of course, we are interested in where the new thread leads,
> but would have missed it because the subject said "$FOO" when people
> were talking about "$BAR".

we'll know that has happened because of the sound of bugles, cash
falling from the sky, and the folk in hell ordering space heaters. :)

randy

Re: AUP modification

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 15, 2007, at 8:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote:


N+1. Replies to list postings that involve a change of topic shall
include a new subject line, with optional reference to the previous
topic, and shall be formatted in such a way as to appear as a new  
thread

in as many common MUAs as possible.


for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having  
folk

adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.


Unless, of course, we are interested in where the new thread leads,  
but would have missed it because the subject said "$FOO" when people  
were talking about "$BAR".


--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Steve Gibbard]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote:


One of the accusations which was leveled at the
administration of the mailing list before the current
one was set in place was that banning &c was
capricious.  Thus, the current MLC does not want to
give the impression of capriciousness.


I keep hearing this, but I'm not sure it's entirely true.

There were some complaints that the list administration was capricious, 
but mostly the complaints were that it was unaccountable.


We've now got a committee who are supposed to have been suggested in large 
part for their good judgment, who are accountable to an elected governing 
body that is accountable to the membership.  If one member of this 
committee starts exercising bad judgment, the other members will 
presumably stop them.  If the full committee becomes widely seen as 
unreasonable, there's a clear process to replace them.


As I see it, this means the mailing list committee should use the care, 
caution, and good judgment that they were selected for.


-Steve

Re: AUP modification

[Randy Bush]

> N+1. Replies to list postings that involve a change of topic shall
> include a new subject line, with optional reference to the previous
> topic, and shall be formatted in such a way as to appear as a new thread
> in as many common MUAs as possible.

for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having folk
adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.

randy

AUP modification

[Pete Templin]

Proposal:

N. Postings to the list shall have a subject line that is a concise 
representation of the topic being referenced.
N+1. Replies to list postings that involve a change of topic shall 
include a new subject line, with optional reference to the previous 
topic, and shall be formatted in such a way as to appear as a new thread 
in as many common MUAs as possible.


Please discuss and blast full of holes as desired.


The MLC is apparently offended that I asked them to focus their efforts 
without providing new proposals, so here's a proposal.  I for one would 
like the data (whether signal or noise) to be more readily identifiable 
when reading, so I figure it's time we do something about that.


pt

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Joel Jaeggli]

Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:
>>> MLC suggests to change the AUP to:
>>>
>>> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
>>> last names, rather than aliases.
>>>
>>> I'd like community feedback on this.
>> I (still) think that this is bollocks.  What matters isn't "real,
>> identifiable first and last names", but "a consistent identifier associated
>> with consistent behaviour over time".
> Well - how would we phrase a policy which would prohibit obvious things 
> like n3td3v while allowing aleph1 and others previously mentioned?
> 
>> Do I care who Aleph1[0] really is?  Nope.  Do I care that Aleph1 has a
>> consistent pattern of behaviour, and can be reliably found as such? Yes.
>>
>> Beyond that - how do you decided what a "real, identifiable first and
>> last name" is?  Are we using baby name books?  Is "Moonunit Zappa" any
>> more (or less) valid than "John Smith" or "Fook Yu" ?
> I understand the dilemma just as well. Problem is, if MLC says "you can't 
> use this alias but $person can" - we'll be accused of being infair. 

use of aliases are not a first order discriminator for disruptive behavior.

> So its either
> * permit all aliases, 
> 
> * permit aliases that are in MLC's judgement sufficiently established and
> identifiable,
> 
> * deny all aliases
> 
> Any other suggestions how to make a decision whether alias is OK without
> ...well, MLC having to make a judgement? :)

Point out to participants engaged in disruptive behavior under the cloak
of anonymity that such behavior is frowned on. There are of course
plenty of people willing it engage in such activity without remaining
anonymous and the content is really the issue.

> Possibly, just permitting all aliases and judging based on the content of 
> contribution is a better way? If someone contributes, does it really 
> matter it is an alias? If someone is trolling, does it matter they use 
> their real name?

In terms of tying off loose ends I think we can consider this one
finished whatever the outcome.

> -alex
> 
> 

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:15 -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 
> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-
> 
> Members must do at least one of the following:
> 
>   -Subscribe/post with your work email address
>   -Use your proper name in your email address 
> (i.e. Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   -Identify yourself in your email sig
>   -Inform the list admins of your correct identity
> -
> 
> 
> : -Subscribe/post with your work email address
>  
> No, not acceptable.  Some companies don't want you to use their email service 
> for things like the NANOG list.
> 
> 
> 
> : -Identify yourself in your email sig
> 
> No, some folks don't do sigs.

OK, that still leaves 2 other options for the membership.  No one plan
fits everyone... every NANOG'er should know that.  Flexibility (in the
requirements as well as by the members) is the key.

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Scott Weeks]

-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-

Members must do at least one of the following:

-Subscribe/post with your work email address
-Use your proper name in your email address 
(i.e. Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Identify yourself in your email sig
-Inform the list admins of your correct identity
-


: -Subscribe/post with your work email address
 
No, not acceptable.  Some companies don't want you to use their email service 
for things like the NANOG list.



: -Identify yourself in your email sig

No, some folks don't do sigs.



scott

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[David Barak]

--- Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Any other suggestions how to make a decision
> whether alias is OK without
> > ...well, MLC having to make a judgement? :)
> 
> why is the latter a requirement?  if it did not
> require judgment, we
> could do it with a computer and save your high
> salaries.

One of the accusations which was leveled at the
administration of the mailing list before the current
one was set in place was that banning &c was
capricious.  Thus, the current MLC does not want to
give the impression of capriciousness.

Obviously, there are judgement calls to be made, but
the preference is that the guidelines by which those
judgements are decided should be more clear than
opaque.

-David

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


 

Finding fabulous fares is fun.  
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel 
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Randy Bush]

> So its either
> * permit all aliases, 
> 
> * permit aliases that are in MLC's judgement sufficiently established and
> identifiable,
> 
> * deny all aliases
> 
> Any other suggestions how to make a decision whether alias is OK without
> ...well, MLC having to make a judgement? :)

why is the latter a requirement?  if it did not require judgment, we
could do it with a computer and save your high salaries.

randy

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Randy Bush]

> Joe (speaking as some random subscriber to the list

my *personal* take
  o it is gonna take me a year to remember that linda is etaoin, but i
will survive
  o i am not aware that names have caused actual problems
  o i found bandy rush amusing, if somewhat puerile, but puerile is that
little club's middle name
  o as far as i can tell, the actual problems are cause by posters
using real names
  o read mike hughes's post carefully, he and etaoin say it very well

but i lived in californica for a few years (in the best years to do so),
and have learned to go with the flow.

randy

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Lynda True (aka Etaoin Shrdlu)]

David Barak wrote:


--- Cat Okita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote:
   


I don't think the corner cases (people who get stalked, people who only have 
one name, etc) invalidate the general value of requiring that
postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional matters be associated 
with one's name.
 


I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and
separation) are
decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're
irrelevant if you
don't happen to be one of them...
   



Corner cases are the ones which should be solved by
working out case-by-case solutions.

The solution worked out may have been satisfactory to you, but was 
decidedly painful and difficult for me. I came to my own solution, and 
have lived within it. Had I still been working, or otherwise continued 
to be in a situation where it was necessary, I'd probably have 
subscribed as something innocuous, via gmail. Still, as Cat said, it's a 
lot easier to claim they're irrelevant if you're not in that position.



Of course, I could be missing something...
 


To  : David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Perhaps I'm missing something here ;>  Is that your
professional email
address? *grin*
   



That's what I am describing: attach a real name to a
handle (much the way Etaoin Shrdlu did).
 

Oh, but that isn't why I did that. That change was just made today, 
about 6 or 7 hours ago. The original agreement had been that, for nanog, 
I'd put my real name in the signature, and, had I felt compelled to post 
to nanog, I'd have done so. However.


*My* solution for NANOG was to just quit posting, and I did. You have 
absolutely not seen a post from me since. I was assured that I did not 
need to make that effort here, since this is, after all, a 
meta-discussion of the mailing list, and so I've continued to post here. 
I continue to disagree with the policy, but am abiding by it.


--
The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life,
the clearer we should see through it.
 Niccolo Machiavelli 

RE: AUP modification - full first and last names

[michael.dillon]

> Personally, I have a hard time understanding much of the 
> opposition to including real names along with one's handle - 
> yes, future employers may look at the assorted NANOG 
> archives, but if one's content is good, that would be an 
> asset, not a liability.  

What!? Forcing people to use their real name would improve the quality
of NANOG content!?

We can't have that, now can we.

I disagree that there is such a thing as a well-known alias in the NANOG
community, where I define the community as the over 10,000 people who
read the list. The number 10,000 comes from the approximate total of
subscriber addresses (both per-message and digest subscribers). The
actual number of readers is probably larger than this because some
addresses are gated into private mailing lists and there must be some
people who read through the web archive.

But, maybe this whole alias issue is a red herring and we shouldn't
worry about it so much. After all, there is nothing magical about real
names, even if we tend to use a reserved vocabulary to form them. They
are merely labels for a person. The list AUP should be more about
content of the messages and less about which labels the writers use.

--Michael Dillon

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Pete Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> What will this do to improve signal-to-noise ratio on the list?
>
> Can we please focus on guidelines that improve SnR?

As always, your recommendations and suggestions for guidelines that
will improve SnR are solicited.

---Rob

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[bmanning]

well... i guess i should stop posting then.

--bill

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[David Barak]

--- Cat Okita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote:
> > I don't think the corner cases (people who get
> > stalked, people who only have one name, etc)
> > invalidate the general value of requiring that
> > postings to a list ostensibly devoted to
> professional
> > matters be associated with one's name.
> 
> I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and
> separation) are
> decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're
> irrelevant if you
> don't happen to be one of them...

Corner cases are the ones which should be solved by
working out case-by-case solutions.  If the volume of
corner cases becomes high, then a different overall
approach would need to be adopted.  Since I have been
involved with the MLC, I have only seen one specific
case where there was not a workable solution which
enabled an individual to continue posting.  One case
in multiple years isn't bad.


> > Of course, I could be missing something...
> 
>   To  : David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something here ;>  Is that your
> professional email
> address? *grin*

That's what I am describing: attach a real name to a
handle (much the way Etaoin Shrdlu did).


David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


   

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:47 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :)

On some Vendor independent lists that I run we have this requirement:

Members must do at least one of the following:

-Subscribe/post with your work email address
-Use your proper name in your email address 
(i.e. Bob Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Identify yourself in your email sig
-Inform the list admins of your correct identity

Yes, we do have some anonymous posters, but the admins know their real
ID and their posts are tracked for positive content.  Complaints, humor,
and OT posts aren't allowed very long from publicly unknown posters.
The lists have been running for 7+ years without any problems from all
the Vendor lawyers waiting in the wings.

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Pete Templin]

Alex Pilosov wrote:


MLC suggests to change the AUP to:

I'd like community feedback on this.


What will this do to improve signal-to-noise ratio on the list?

Can we please focus on guidelines that improve SnR?

pt

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Cat Okita]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:

To : David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Perhaps I'm missing something here ;> Is that your professional email
address? *grin*

There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :)


Heh.  I was thinking "professional appearance" not "work email" - but agreed ;>

cheers!
==
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet.  This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Alex Pilosov]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote:
> > I don't think the corner cases (people who get stalked, people who
> > only have one name, etc) invalidate the general value of requiring
> > that postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional matters be
> > associated with one's name.
> 
> I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and separation) are
> decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're irrelevant if you
> don't happen to be one of them...
> 
> > Of course, I could be missing something...
> 
>   To : David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something here ;> Is that your professional email
> address? *grin*
There's no requirement to have work email address, just the names. :)

-alex

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Cat Okita]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Barak wrote:

I don't think the corner cases (people who get
stalked, people who only have one name, etc)
invalidate the general value of requiring that
postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional
matters be associated with one's name.


I think the corner cases (and preserving privacy and separation) are
decidedly important - but it's easy to claim they're irrelevant if you
don't happen to be one of them...


Of course, I could be missing something...


To  : David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Perhaps I'm missing something here ;>  Is that your professional email
address? *grin*

cheers!
==
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet.  This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[David Barak]

--- Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Possibly, just permitting all aliases and judging
> based on the content of 
> contribution is a better way? If someone
> contributes, does it really 
> matter it is an alias? If someone is trolling, does
> it matter they use 
> their real name?

There were previous cases where individuals appeared
to cycle identities to continue trolling.  Further,
there were uncharitable posts which used obvious
parodies of well-known names (Bandy Rush, Vaul Pixie,
etc).

Personally, I have a hard time understanding much of
the opposition to including real names along with
one's handle - yes, future employers may look at the
assorted NANOG archives, but if one's content is good,
that would be an asset, not a liability.  

I don't think the corner cases (people who get
stalked, people who only have one name, etc)
invalidate the general value of requiring that
postings to a list ostensibly devoted to professional
matters be associated with one's name.

Of course, I could be missing something...

-David Barak

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com


   

Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware 
protection.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Joe Abley]

On 15-Jun-2007, at 11:24, Alex Pilosov wrote:

Well - how would we phrase a policy which would prohibit obvious  
things

like n3td3v while allowing aleph1 and others previously mentioned?


To me, the question is *why* would we bother spending time making  
such a policy, not *how* we would make it.


The policy we have right now, when interpreted by humans on the MLC,  
does precisely what is needed already. At least, as far as I can tell.



So its either
* permit all aliases,

* permit aliases that are in MLC's judgement sufficiently  
established and

identifiable,


Yes please. If people want to accuse the MLC of bias or inequitable  
dealing in consequence, then they are free to do so. I'm quite sure  
you hear worse :-)



* deny all aliases


Any other suggestions how to make a decision whether alias is OK  
without

...well, MLC having to make a judgement? :)


Not from me!

Possibly, just permitting all aliases and judging based on the  
content of

contribution is a better way? If someone contributes, does it really
matter it is an alias? If someone is trolling, does it matter they use
their real name?


Now you're talking.


Joe (random list subscriber)

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Cat Okita]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:

Well - how would we phrase a policy which would prohibit obvious things
like n3td3v while allowing aleph1 and others previously mentioned?


I believe n3td3v's already covered by the "disruptive behaviour" clause ;>


Possibly, just permitting all aliases and judging based on the content of
contribution is a better way? If someone contributes, does it really
matter it is an alias? If someone is trolling, does it matter they use
their real name?


That'd be my thought - I don't see any inherent difference between "John
Smith" trolling and "n3td3v" trolling ;>

cheers!
==
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet.  This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Alex Pilosov]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jim Popovitch wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 03:02 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> > Before everyone goes all happy and tell me I'm nuts for even suggesting 
> > this, I'd like to say...
> > 
> > The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the posters
> > and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names and not
> > aliases.
> 
> Why not just make a better process for nanog-post.  When someone
> subscribes to nanog-post, auto-respond with a polite email asking them
> to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with some identifying info (real name, location,
> job, intentions).  Then the MLC can review for appropriateness, and
> archive for future reference.
I'd say "hell no, this isn't nsp-sec". :) 

-alex

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Alex Pilosov]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Cat Okita wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> > MLC suggests to change the AUP to:
> >
> > 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
> > last names, rather than aliases.
> >
> > I'd like community feedback on this.
> 
> I (still) think that this is bollocks.  What matters isn't "real,
> identifiable first and last names", but "a consistent identifier associated
> with consistent behaviour over time".
Well - how would we phrase a policy which would prohibit obvious things 
like n3td3v while allowing aleph1 and others previously mentioned?

> Do I care who Aleph1[0] really is?  Nope.  Do I care that Aleph1 has a
> consistent pattern of behaviour, and can be reliably found as such? Yes.
> 
> Beyond that - how do you decided what a "real, identifiable first and
> last name" is?  Are we using baby name books?  Is "Moonunit Zappa" any
> more (or less) valid than "John Smith" or "Fook Yu" ?
I understand the dilemma just as well. Problem is, if MLC says "you can't 
use this alias but $person can" - we'll be accused of being infair. 

So its either
* permit all aliases, 

* permit aliases that are in MLC's judgement sufficiently established and
identifiable,

* deny all aliases

Any other suggestions how to make a decision whether alias is OK without
...well, MLC having to make a judgement? :)

Possibly, just permitting all aliases and judging based on the content of 
contribution is a better way? If someone contributes, does it really 
matter it is an alias? If someone is trolling, does it matter they use 
their real name?

-alex

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Cat Okita]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Jim Popovitch wrote:

Why not just make a better process for nanog-post.  When someone
subscribes to nanog-post, auto-respond with a polite email asking them
to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with some identifying info (real name, location,
job, intentions).   Then the MLC can review for appropriateness, and
archive for future reference.


Why?  Are we about to start some version of the network police ;>  I'd
have to think that the mlc have better things to do with their time than
worry about tracking identifying information for a varying number of
people (never mind the question of what's sufficient identifying info,
and how said info should be stored, and whether it's even a reasonable
thing to ask for according to the privacy laws of various countries...)

Bah, I say again... Bah.

cheers!
==
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet.  This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Cat Okita]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:

MLC suggests to change the AUP to:

7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
last names, rather than aliases.

I'd like community feedback on this.


I (still) think that this is bollocks.  What matters isn't "real,
identifiable first and last names", but "a consistent identifier associated
with consistent behaviour over time".

Do I care who Aleph1[0] really is?  Nope.  Do I care that Aleph1 has a
consistent pattern of behaviour, and can be reliably found as such? Yes.

Beyond that - how do you decided what a "real, identifiable first and
last name" is?  Are we using baby name books?  Is "Moonunit Zappa" any
more (or less) valid than "John Smith" or "Fook Yu" ?

Bah.

cheers!
[0] Yes, I know the name on one set of their gov't ID, at least - does 
it matter?  No.

==
"A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound
desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to
avoid getting wet.  This is the defining metaphor of my life right now."

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers  
to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their  
real

name.


I'd have to disagree; I think there may be more people who know me as
"RS" than who know my actual first and last name.  Of course, you will
find both in my From line, but I'm not the only one who has
experienced this phenomenon; Richard Stallman and Guy Steele spring
immediately to mind.


Given that both RS & I worked with Michael, and he knows many people  
know both of us by our "aliases", I am surprised he posted that.   
Especially since mine doesn't even have anything to do with my name.   
(I had to set up "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" because so many people didn't know  
even my first name.)


I have had people - working for the same company! - who have  
commented to people in the halls about "that not-an-isp-guy".   
(Fortunately, in that instance, it was a good comment. :)


--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Joe Abley]

On 15-Jun-2007, at 09:04, Mike Hughes wrote:


Mike


If, indeed, that is your real name! :-)

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Mike Hughes]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Randy Bush wrote:


I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real
name.


etoain shrdlu springs to mind instantly, has been using that alias since
1948, and i bet most folk can not tell me etoian's real name of the top
of your head.


Exactly. There is a key difference between well known pseudonyms, such as 
the above, and pseudonyms setup on throwaway webmail accounts in order to 
troll the list.


You've also got pseudonyms setup so someone can make a valuable comment or 
provide an insight that they might not have been able to make as 
"themselves" - would we be worse off for not having these sort of 
contributions?


The fact is, because of the type of community we are and where we came 
from, we're going to have well known pseudonyms.


It's all about content, not what name is in the header.

Mike

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Joe Abley]

On 15-Jun-2007, at 03:02, Alex Pilosov wrote:

The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the  
posters

and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names and not
aliases.


What's a name?

"Etaoin Shrdlu" is a name. It's not (presumably!) the name on Lynda's  
birth certificate, but it's the name that most people in this  
community know her by.


"Joe Abley" is a name. It is not the name on my birth certificate,  
either, but nobody calls me "Joseph".


It seems to me that the AUP is currently vague, and that that is a  
good thing. We should leave it up to the people trusted to moderate  
the list to interpret it in a way that makes sense. Precise  
definitions in the AUP are (in my opinion) a slippery slope to  
defining "quality", and erupting in fountains of koans about  
motorcycle maintenance.


To put it another way, if the AUP was definitively precise in all  
areas, we wouldn't need an MLC to interpret it -- we could use a perl  
script. I don't see us dispensing with the MLC any time soon.



Joe (speaking as some random subscriber to the list who has  
apparently developed an opinion during a tedious 5 hour connection in  
Detroit)

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Jim Popovitch]

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 03:02 -0400, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> Before everyone goes all happy and tell me I'm nuts for even suggesting 
> this, I'd like to say...
> 
> The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the posters
> and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names and not
> aliases.

Why not just make a better process for nanog-post.  When someone
subscribes to nanog-post, auto-respond with a polite email asking them
to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with some identifying info (real name, location,
job, intentions).   Then the MLC can review for appropriateness, and
archive for future reference.

-Jim P.

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Lynda True (aka Etaoin Shrdlu)]

Randy Bush wrote:


I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real
name.
   



etoain shrdlu springs to mind instantly, has been using that alias since
1948, and i bet most folk can not tell me etoian's real name of the top
of your head.
 

Well, now, *that's* amusing. I just barely (and I mean just hours ago) 
changed the way I present myself on this account, since the clock is 
nearly wound down on my clearances, and I'm pretty sure that I won't 
return to that world. Just the same, let me speak in defense of aliases, 
and long-term people. I knew who spaf was, and tale, and it never 
occurred to me to think that those weren't specific people.
I don't know who "Kradorex Xeron" is, other than to assure you that it 
is indeed an alias used by the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED], and who 
only appeared on mailing lists within the past year. Apparently there 
are those who know him, but I'm not one of them.


http://info.sonicretro.org/DigitalXeron

That said, I am absolutely not suggesting that someone needs to force 
his removal from the list (and I will feel genuinely sorry if such a 
thing happens; I ask humbly that it does not). I understand the need for 
accountability. Anyone with the slightest understanding of how whois 
works can figure out how to find me, and I would say that the insistence 
on a first and last name doesn't really lend itself to accountability. 
It's easy to generate gmail accounts, and I have often considered that 
it would have been an easy out for me, but then, it would bother my 
conscience, so I don't.


Does KX have the same reasons as I did for wanting the slight 
obfuscation? You know, I don't care. A good half of his contributions to 
the list are noise as far as I'm concerned, but sometimes, he makes a 
good point. Lord knows there are plenty of people posting endlessly on 
this list (and others) who happily flog dead horses until I want to 
start looking for the SPCA, and they do it with real names.


I've thought over and over about this, and tried to keep quiet, but here 
it is.


--
The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life,
the clearer we should see through it.
 Niccolo Machiavelli 

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Alex Pilosov wrote:
>
>> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
>> last names, rather than aliases.
>>
>
> there are people and cultures where there is only one name. no such
> thing as last and first names.
>
> dunno, what you'd tell them if they post on nanog.

In the past, the MLC has looked at the totality of the situation
before issuing friendly requests to use one's full name.  Our contacts
with these folks are always phrased in a "could you please honor the
AUP" sort of way, so as to minimize offense if we should happen to be
off the mark in some way.  While we haven't run into the specific
situation you outline above, my guess would be that someone who (a)
has only a single name and (b) speaks English which is one of the
three mother tongues of nanog@ (the others being "cisco" and
"juniper") probably is sufficiently aware that a single name is
unusual to respond by educating us on his situation rather than taking
offense.  You have more experience with single name cultures than I do
- do you concur?  Anything to add?  I can't imagine that the MLC would
ban someone from the list for not having both a forename or a surname.

---Rob

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Robert E. Seastrom]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the
> NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real
> name.

I'd have to disagree; I think there may be more people who know me as
"RS" than who know my actual first and last name.  Of course, you will
find both in my From line, but I'm not the only one who has
experienced this phenomenon; Richard Stallman and Guy Steele spring
immediately to mind.

---Rob

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Randy Bush]

> I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the
> NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real
> name.

etoain shrdlu springs to mind instantly, has been using that alias since
1948, and i bet most folk can not tell me etoian's real name of the top
of your head.

randy

RE: AUP modification - full first and last names

[michael.dillon]

> I'm very well aware that there are persons whose alias is far 
> better known in the community than their real name,

Which community is this?

I would suggest that in the community of 10,000 email subscribers to the
NANOG list, there is nobody whose alias is better known than their real
name.

> The firstname/lastname is in continuance of that dilemma - 
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 
> (for example) complies with the letter but not really with 
> spirit. How should MLC distinguish between 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] where this person is known by 
> everyone as "something.com peering coordinator" and someone 
> else who is really an anonymous alias?

What is wrong with signature blocks like this one?

--Michael Dillon

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya]

Alex Pilosov wrote:


7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
last names, rather than aliases.



there are people and cultures where there is only one name. no such 
thing as last and first names.


dunno, what you'd tell them if they post on nanog.

thanks

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Joel Jaeggli]

Alex Pilosov wrote:
> Currently, NANOG AUP states:
> 
> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and
> addresses, rather than aliases.
> 
> Occasionally, posters don't put in their full names (using either only 
> first name or last name) and get a nice email from mlc asking them to 
> please use their full name. It isn't very clear that using just first or 
> last name is insufficient.

so the overall issue of pseudnyms was flagged before and I think the
observations that were made then are still applicable.

> The purpose is to ensure that community knows who posters are - we don't 
> need any more "n3td3vs" or similar. However, just using 
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is (in my opinion) not with the spirit of the 
> policy.
>
> MLC suggests to change the AUP to:
> 
> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
> last names, rather than aliases.

Some pseudonyms are used out of convenience I.E. nicknames that stuck,
or for example I tend not to use my full name because I don't like
typing it.

The elements that were attempted to be teased out the last time were:

professionalism.

anonymity in a small close knit community.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] are all pseudonyms but
there isn't a real dispute about who those people are at a superfical level.

> (I think "address" is superfluous here - by definition email address is
> identifiable and real).

email addresses can be ephemeral, anonymity but it's nature is an
asymmetric tool when leveraged in public.

> I'd like community feedback on this.

When last we discussed this I came to the conclusion that I wasn't
myself interested in discriminating a priori on the basis of the use of
pseudonym.


> Thanks!
> 
> -alex
> 

Re: AUP modification - full first and last names

[Alex Pilosov]

Before everyone goes all happy and tell me I'm nuts for even suggesting 
this, I'd like to say...

The spirit of AUP is to ensure some personal accountability to the posters
and to avoid "sockpuppets" - thus requirement for real names and not
aliases.

I'm very well aware that there are persons whose alias is far better known
in the community than their real name, and it would generally make sense
to allow them to use alias - that provides plenty of accountability.
However, MLC will then be seen as playing favorites if we let some people
use alias but ask others not to use them. 

The firstname/lastname is in continuance of that dilemma - "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" 
(for example) complies with the letter but not really with spirit. How 
should MLC distinguish between [EMAIL PROTECTED] where this person 
is known by everyone as "something.com peering coordinator" and someone 
else who is really an anonymous alias?

Yes, I know it is a fairly minor issue, and possibly, we shouldn't bother
and let people post under whatever aliases they want...But on other hand,
maybe not ;)

Yes, I know the 'aliases' don't really present a problem on the mailing
list now (as in, people who don't use their real names don't seem to be
more or less annoying/clueless/etc than the rest of nanog-list).  But, as
surprising as it is, this is one of the things that comes up more often to
nanog-admin than others - complaints that "X is obviously an alias, which
violates AUP".

So, if you disagree with the suggested policy - please post some 
suggestions on how would you prefer things to be handled, in light of 
above. 

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote:

> Currently, NANOG AUP states:
> 
> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable names and
> addresses, rather than aliases.
> 
> Occasionally, posters don't put in their full names (using either only 
> first name or last name) and get a nice email from mlc asking them to 
> please use their full name. It isn't very clear that using just first or 
> last name is insufficient.
> 
> The purpose is to ensure that community knows who posters are - we don't 
> need any more "n3td3vs" or similar. However, just using 
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is (in my opinion) not with the spirit of the 
> policy.
> 
> MLC suggests to change the AUP to:
> 
> 7. Postings to the list must be made using real, identifiable first and
> last names, rather than aliases.
> 
> (I think "address" is superfluous here - by definition email address is
> identifiable and real).
> 
> I'd like community feedback on this.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -alex
> 
>