Re:
On 10/30/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Spam-l is well established and accepts operators. Go west young man. > > Otherwise, use your kill file, Luke. > I'm very much with Marty on this one. The mail issues *as they are > relevant* to the network operators are on-topic here, and there's no need > to create a separate list. > > If the original poster was looking for specific "mail operations" list, I > do not think it is within the scope of NANOG, as per charter. There are > other organizations that are better geared for this. MAAWG for 'big boys', > spam-l for 'everyone'. > > To run the mailing list that is both open to everyone and relevant to > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to do > that with nanog-list first. > > alex [nanog mlc chair] Since you and Marty are both including the 'mlc' labels in your sigs, I read your posts as the MLC position is to not allow such an experiment. Am I reading that correctly? (As opposed to just another nanog-future voice chiming in with an opinion.) (I'm not contesting that view, just clarifying in my own mind what is open for discussion and what is being shot down from an authority position.) Bill
Re: mail operators list
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote: > > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to do > > that with nanog-list first. > > > > alex [nanog mlc chair] > > Since you and Marty are both including the 'mlc' labels in your sigs, > I read your posts as the MLC position is to not allow such an > experiment. Am I reading that correctly? (As opposed to just another > nanog-future voice chiming in with an opinion.) We haven't discussed it on -admin or voted, so it is not an official position of MLC. However, it is my opinion as MLC chair. That being said, there's no problem discussing it on -futures, I can always change my mind when confronted with a cogent argument :) In addition, my understanding is that MLC doesn't decide on adding new mailing list anyway - we just enforce the policy as set by SC and merit, reference charter 7.1.3: "The NANOG organization may also run other Internet-operations-focused mailing lists and/or bulletin boards, at the discretion of the Steering Committee and Merit." So, it doesn't really matter if it is my personal opinion, my opinion as ML chair, or MLC's voted-upon opinion, it isn't up to MLC ;) -alex
Re: your mail
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: > To run the mailing list that is both open to everyone and relevant to > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to do > that with nanog-list first. So a 30 post thread on something mail server operational like "mail queue retry settings" would be welcome on the NANOG list? -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: mail operators list
On 10/30/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote: > > > > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > > > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > > > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to do > > > that with nanog-list first. > > > > > > alex [nanog mlc chair] > > > > Since you and Marty are both including the 'mlc' labels in your sigs, > > I read your posts as the MLC position is to not allow such an > > experiment. Am I reading that correctly? (As opposed to just another > > nanog-future voice chiming in with an opinion.) > We haven't discussed it on -admin or voted, so it is not an official > position of MLC. However, it is my opinion as MLC chair. > > That being said, there's no problem discussing it on -futures, I can > always change my mind when confronted with a cogent argument :) > > In addition, my understanding is that MLC doesn't decide on adding new > mailing list anyway - we just enforce the policy as set by SC and merit, > reference charter 7.1.3: "The NANOG organization may also run other > Internet-operations-focused mailing lists and/or bulletin boards, at the > discretion of the Steering Committee and Merit." > > So, it doesn't really matter if it is my personal opinion, my opinion as > ML chair, or MLC's voted-upon opinion, it isn't up to MLC ;) > > -alex Thanks - that is kinda what I figured. I would suggest that it might be best to only put an MLC hat when commenting in an MLC role in a NANOG mailing list. That way, when an MLC person says, "I think we have discussed this to death" it is clear that it isn't an official "stop discussing" notice, and that their comments and/or opinions carry no more weight in that context than anyone elses. Otherwise, over time, there is an increased chance for ambiguity and interpretation. My .02 anyway. Bill FWIW - I understand the challenge in getting a new mailing list of the ground is one of critical mass; like nanog-futures itself is only a small subsection of the nanog-l community. So chances are that another mailing list for mail operations may not get off the ground. It is equally plausible that it could turn into something that could require it's own MLC. Just the same, if enough people wanted to try it, I don't see too much of a reason why NANOG shouldn't facilitate this interaction among this part of the ops community with an experiment...
Re: mail operators list
But if such a list were created, I wouldnt participate in its operation, mlc or otherwise. I have a day job. Bill can use filters to make his own life easier. On 10/30/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote: > > > > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > > > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > > > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try to > do > > > that with nanog-list first. > > > > > > alex [nanog mlc chair] > > > > Since you and Marty are both including the 'mlc' labels in your sigs, > > I read your posts as the MLC position is to not allow such an > > experiment. Am I reading that correctly? (As opposed to just another > > nanog-future voice chiming in with an opinion.) > We haven't discussed it on -admin or voted, so it is not an official > position of MLC. However, it is my opinion as MLC chair. > > That being said, there's no problem discussing it on -futures, I can > always change my mind when confronted with a cogent argument :) > > In addition, my understanding is that MLC doesn't decide on adding new > mailing list anyway - we just enforce the policy as set by SC and merit, > reference charter 7.1.3: "The NANOG organization may also run other > Internet-operations-focused mailing lists and/or bulletin boards, at the > discretion of the Steering Committee and Merit." > > So, it doesn't really matter if it is my personal opinion, my opinion as > ML chair, or MLC's voted-upon opinion, it isn't up to MLC ;) > > -alex >
Re: mail operators list
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, William B. Norton wrote: > I would suggest that it might be best to only put an MLC hat when > commenting in an MLC role in a NANOG mailing list. That way, when an MLC > person says, "I think we have discussed this to death" it is clear that > it isn't an official "stop discussing" notice, and that their comments > and/or opinions carry no more weight in that context than anyone elses. > Otherwise, over time, there is an increased chance for ambiguity and > interpretation. "MLC hat is put on for identification purpose only". > FWIW - I understand the challenge in getting a new mailing list of the > ground is one of critical mass; like nanog-futures itself is only a > small subsection of the nanog-l community. So chances are that another > mailing list for mail operations may not get off the ground. It is > equally plausible that it could turn into something that could require > it's own MLC. Just the same, if enough people wanted to try it, I don't > see too much of a reason why NANOG shouldn't facilitate this interaction > among this part of the ops community with an experiment... I wouldn't necessarily mind the experiment. However, I think we should attempt the 'expansion' only after we bring the nanog-list into the good order (in some definition of 'good order'). For reference, keeping up with nanog-list itself (reading every message) takes 30 minutes a day or so. If this was mail-related list, it'd be hours. :)
Re: your mail
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Simon Lyall wrote: > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Alex Pilosov wrote: > > To run the mailing list that is both open to everyone and relevant to > > 'people who actually matter' is hard even when we are talking about > > network operations, which doesn't attract kooks and heated opinions > > anywhere as much as any subject dealing with mail or spam. Let's try > > to do that with nanog-list first. > > So a 30 post thread on something mail server operational like "mail > queue retry settings" would be welcome on the NANOG list? "Network operators". Not mail operators. The discussion of 'mail queue retry settings' sounds somewhat operational to me - I wouldn't think its off-topic. However, for relevancy, I think there are better forums for that discussion - the mailing lists for appropriate MTAs, as I think the 'retry settings' mean different things for each MTA. -alex
Re: mail operators list
On 10/30/07, Alex Pilosov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > I wouldn't necessarily mind the experiment. However, I think we should > attempt the 'expansion' only after we bring the nanog-list into the good > order (in some definition of 'good order'). : 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. Bill
Re: mail operators list
Randy Bush wrote: 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. I think Randy has hit on the solution to all problems. I'm waiting for the new Al Gore movie where he puts the solution to genocide to the problem of global warming. Of course, without human involvement, who would be here to enjoy it? I always DID think that the Internet was spoiled after all the current users got involved. -Sean (Don't even bother to respond)
