Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for NewNOG ’s membership structure
Satisfies all of my criticism with the previously proposed membership structure. joel On 12/16/10 5:31 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: In order to jump-start the process of defining a membership structure for NewNOG, I wrote an alternative proposal. My goals were to keep it as simple and short as possible, and address the concerns which came up during the election and afterwards. There are two parts, a Bylaws amendment to set the framework, and a policy document to set the specific rules. The policy document would be adopted by board resolution. Both are appended below. Please read the proposal (it's short!) and comment. Thanks, Steve == Bylaws amendment - Replace the current section 5 in its entirety with: 5. Membership 5.1 Membership Qualifications Membership in NewNOG is open to any individual with an interest in Internet operations, engineering, or research and who wishes to further education and knowledge sharing within the Internet operations community. Any individual may become a member of NewNOG by completing an application and payment of dues. 5.2 Membership Classes There shall be only one class of membership, with all the rights and privileges specified in these Bylaws. 5.3 Membership Dues The Board of Directors shall specify the cost of annual membership dues. The Board may establish discounts for members meeting certain criteria, or for members wishing to pay for more than one year in advance. 5.4 Rights and Benefits of Members Members in good standing shall be entitled to these privileges: * Vote in all NewNOG elections. * Run as a candidate for the Board of Directors * Serve on an administrative committee, as defined in section 9 * Other privileges as specified by the Board of Directors 5.5 Policies and Procedures The Board of Directors shall establish and publish policies and procedures for implementation of the membership program. == Membership Policies and Procedures, to be adopted by Board resolution: 1. Annual Dues 1.1 Standard rate The standard annual dues is $100. 1.2 Student discount Students enrolled in an undergraduate or graduate degree program at an accredited institution will receive a 50% discount for annual dues. Proof of enrollment is required. This may not be combined with any other discount. 1.3 Multi-year discount Individuals who prepay three or more years of membership in advance will receive a 10% discount. This may not be combined with any other discount. 2. Membership Terms 2.1 Start of membership The term of membership shall begin immediately upon receipt of the member's application and payment for dues. 2.2 Expiration of membership 2.2.1 New memberships For new members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the last day of the month during which the membership started, unless membership is renewed. 2.2.2 Continuing memberships For continuing members, the term of membership shall expire one year after the previous expiration date, unless membership is renewed. 2.3 Renewal A member may renew by submitting payment of the current dues amount before the expiration of the current membership term. Members who have prepaid for more than one year in advance shall be automatically renewed for the additional years prepaid. 3. Additional Benefits 3.1 Meeting discount Members in good standing will receive a $25 discount for registration for any conference operated by NewNOG. This may not be combined with any other discounts, including any discounts for students or early registration. == ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] New Membership-WG Draft
And doing so, (strongly encouraging them) has nothing to do with a membership class called student. In fact it doesn't have anything to do with membership, it has to do with exposure, attendance and validation. Any number of us who became involved with NANOG, as students did so because we had something to contribute as well as much to learn. Joel's widget number 2 On Oct 29, 2010, at 22:08, Steve Gibbard s...@gibbard.org wrote: My problem with this line of thinking is that I don't want to merely not prevent or discourage students from joining. I want to strongly encourage them to. They're not the same thing. -Steve On Oct 29, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote: On 10/29/10 2:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote: On Oct 27, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Joe Provo wrote: 2) I'm not sure how happy I am to see student memberships gone. I like the idea that a student could pay a reduced fee to be a member, yes I do realize that the student can still attend the meeting without membership. I'll be more firm; I'm not happy. This seems like a fairly fundamental question of vision to me. The lack of a separate class of membership for students does not have anything whatsoever to do with the educational mission or vision of NANOG. The lack of a separate class of membership for students does not prevent or discourage discounted or even free dues for students. The lack of a separate class of membership for students does not bar or discourage students from attending NANOG events or prevent discounted or even free admission to such events. It simply eliminates a separate hard-coded-in-the-bylaws class of member. In some ways, not having a separate class of membership puts students who are NANOG members on a more equal footing. It eliminates, Oh, you're just a student member, not a FULL member like the rest of us. This was kicked around quite a but in the WG. Originally there were classes of membership for students, life members, and Fellows in addition to regular members. None had any true distinction in terms of defined rights and privileges. The only defined distinguishing factor was related to dues. It was decided to reduce the number of classes of member to one and let NANOG's elected representatives set the dues structure outside of the definition of who is a member. There is strong support of discounted membership dues for students and I support the continuance of discounted student fees for meeting attendance despite the marginal cost increase for the non-students. This isn't a vision thing. It is a means to, as someone else suggested, reduce to a minimum the number of used words to define membership. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Memberships, Bylaws and other election matters
On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote: Hi Steve, I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee structure should cover all. Can you clarify why you would elect not to recognize significant contributions made from an individual? Thanks! -ren I personally have nothing against the concept. But some others do, and I don't want to make any choices that would be difficult or awkward to unmake until we end up with consensus either way. Recognition is a valuable socially sustaining community activity. I don't believe that it has any business being tied to membership. Assuming that the bylaws are accepted, certainly some of those deserving of community recognition will not be members, I don't see that as a problem. [Or, what Mike said!] Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
I've stated it before I think, I have no problem with student's being member's or having a discounted rate. New blood in the community should be encouraged and celebrated, and if they wish to participate in the the governance, so much the better. They should however simply be members regardless of fee schedule. On 10/2/10 9:46 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: I think your comments are a bit harsh on students, especially I don't see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter. This really depends on what the mission of the organization is. A vehicle to do NANOG conferences? A way of hosting mailing lists? Or something a bit more ambitious that addresses the need for a professional organization for network engineering in North America? The state of network engineering education is truly abysmal. From what I can tell, there are no reasonable undergraduate programs. On the graduate side, we get the sort of presentations at NANOG that led us to have a research forum which is a codeword for get the hell out of the main session while some kid presents on something he doesn't understand. I guess that sounds a bit harsh, too :) What do student memberships bring to any professional organization? Nothing in terms of governance, common sense, or professional knowledge, generally. However, they do provide other, less tangible benefits. It gets students interested in the profession into a situation where they are affiliated with an organization that is composed of practitioners, not ill-informed academics. ACM has done a pretty good job with this. I doubt we'll see many (if any at all) student memberships initially. However, having this hook in the bylaws allows us to expand into more educational programming without having to do a change to the bylaws, which is a pretty big pain. As far as the bylaws in general - I think Steve Gibbard has done a wonderful job, just as he's always done for NANOG, with little thanks and absolutely no recognition. He's not the kind of guy that gets a special colored badge at conferences or who gets a lot of thanks from the podium, but every few years when we really need him, he's there for all of us and he always delivers. If anyone here is volunteering to help him, this would be the right time to step up. - Dan On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Sean Figgins s...@labrats.us mailto:s...@labrats.us wrote: On 10/1/10 11:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. if there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. Not everyone on the membership working group agreed with all the membership classifications. I, for one, see no need for a student classification. In fact, I still see no value in student membership for governance of NewNOG, which is all membership is for at this point. Students already get a discount on the price of conferences, so I am told. I can see value to the students to attend the conferences, as it is a learning experience for them, just like the rest of us. I don't see any value to NANOG, though, as most students lack any experience in inter-networking, or common sense, for that matter. The bylaws could use quite a bit of improvement, and should have had some proofreading done before being put to a vote, as the structure is less than consistent, but... At this point, I do not see any more changes going into the bylaws before the election. My suggestion would be to vote to ratify the bylaws and the transition, and then at the next annual election, we can amend the bylaws and fix what needs to be fixed. My comments are in no way meant to lessen the efforts of the individuals involved. They put in a lot of hard work for very little recognition and even less personal benefit. There was very little time to pull this together, and most have a paying job that demands their time and attention. It is more a miracle that we have anything to vote on at all. -Sean ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership, and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time. it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra legroom members, and dismembers. why the hell is all this crap needed? you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Final bylaws proposal
On 10/1/10 10:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote: you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll. my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren). my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership states, members and non still stands. iff there is a membership fee, i can see a student discount. which is a question of fee schedule rather than status. I don't have a safeway club card, they still take my money. randy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Proposed bylaws for NewNOG
I didn't get the chance to cruise through this as quickly as I wanted but I'll weigh in on at least part of it... Despite my status as a sapphire-button mandarin in the current nanog cabal I am not in general in favor of membership tiers or classifications. If membership is required and I'm ok with that case that has been been made for that, there should be two tiers at most, members and non-members. student membership is a question of fee schedule and not an issue of status, fellows are just another monkey on the bus. On 9/19/10 10:05 PM, Steve Feldman wrote: The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has published a set of proposed bylaws for the corporation. These may be found at: http://www.newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf Please take a few minutes to review these and make any comments or suggestions. There will be a question on the ballot during the NANOG election next month to ratify these bylaws. Everyone eligible to vote in the NANOG election will also be eligible to vote on this. Thanks, Steve (for the NewNOG board) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Transition update
Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC. joel On 2010-06-02 15:20, Pete Templin wrote: Jay Hennigan wrote: On 6/2/10 1:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: Jay, you keep talking about the Merit members of the SC and PC, for example. They can't agree to a proposal like this, even if they want to - they are in place as Merit employees. Sure they can. If Merit is aware that its mission differs from that of NANOG, as Merit employees they might very well agree that the time has come to part ways. This NANOG thing is no longer consistent with Merit's goals, and they want to leave anyway, it's in everyone's best interest to cut them loose. Not all takeovers are hostile. I disagree. Merit has skin in the game, as a loss of NANOG means a loss of revenue that pays staff salaries. If Merit employees vote to cut NANOG loose, they're likely signing termination papers for several people. $300-400k flows from NANOG revenue to Merit staff salaries per year. pt ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites
Jo Rhett wrote: On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to all queries, on topic. On topic for who? Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl. It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam prevention, or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to routing. It caused a widespread outage in a distributed internet service in somewhat unanticapated fashion. DNSBL's and similar resource mapping facilities are not solely a spam tool (consider the other applications for the ip to asn for example), how they break should be of interest to us for much the same reason that cache poisoning is. as I noted much of the ensuing dicussion was far off topic. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Conference Network Experiment policy
Martin Hannigan wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Joe Provo nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net mailto:nanog-...@rsuc.gweep.net wrote: Thanks for the feedback - please do keep it coming! We'll pop out an updated draft to reflect the concensus when some equilibrium is reached, but just to comment on some of the questions and points raised so far (both on-list and off): - Costs were intended to be covered under the Have finite and well-defined requirements for support [...] (WRT static/sunk costs of labour, etc) and a statement regarding resources the proposer is committing to supply (WRT money or specific equipment needed for the experiment). The draft will be updated to make both more explict. - It would be interesting to suggest that a copy of all raw data collected to be provided back to the community so that they too could share in the research or create derivatives from it (with proper attribution for all work product of course). As a goal that's exactly the opposite of how we've done it in the past. not sure that it's necessarily a bad idea, just saying. Best, Martin -- Martin Hannigan mar...@theicelandguy.com mailto:mar...@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Mailing list procedures for review by the NANOG community
Martin Hannigan wrote: Folks, I'm seeking some commentary on the following document that may help us to make incremental improvements in the operation of the mailing list. http://www.fugawi.net/~hannigan/nanog-mlcp1-1.pdf Please reply here or privately. Yeah, I object to the additional exposition present in the aup (page 2) if I lay it (the proposed text) along side the existing text the tenor of the former does not match the later. the old is here. Acceptable Use Policy 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. For some reason my feeble brain is having trouble extracting the text from the current pdf so that's left as an exercise to the reader... The proposed text may provide direct instruction to list participants, but I'm not of the opinion that addional instruction makes the job of the mlc any easier. I am struck by the observation of the email attached to the current aup which says in part: ... The charter of the NANOG list was written to avoid being too specific and to not preclude useful network-relevent discussion, because sometimes this kind of thing is appropriate, but trying to cleanly delineate it is harder than most tasks in the life of a network engineer ... --jhawk ... -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Countdown Timer
Martin Hannigan wrote: Thanks. The idea is to have a consistent, repeatable, staff run system that is able to be used from the media station in the back of the room independent of the PC. It's not their job to run the sound boards and we pay for this service as part of the administration fee that Merit charges against the revenue. The dsan (or other pro manufacturer) systems are designed for conferences. The question that is posed is do we want a professional and non intrusive method of indicating time to a presenter, and if that includes an improvement in broadcasting sound (mics), do we all agree that this is a worthwhile investment? One of the key talents a good MC is a sense of timing that makes the events flow, If you put the clock in front of the speaker the mc should probably have some control over it. It's cue for the speaker not a precision timing instrument. The last time, I was up there with one 30 minute session and three lighting talks the first speaker took only 15 minutes for the preso. That did dictate how much time there was to take questions and when the mic's were cutoff. I'd say yes. By professional I'm not sure if you mean regularized or if you mean more Johny Carson and less Don Rickles? Having a facility the helps the speakers is desirable in my mind. -M On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Matt Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We could probably gain the countdown support with a hacked ybox2, see http://www.deepdarc.com/ybox2 . As for the lapel mic support, I agree this would increase the professional value. Please see my ASIN ACSP request 2008.9 which attempts to address this (FYI, ARIN contracts out to Merit to do their webcast's with same gear) http://www.arin.net/acsp/suggestions/2008-9.html . --Matt On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:31 PM, William Norton wrote: They also found a way for the speaker not to have their laptop screen flipped open preventing the audience (or the video camera) from seeing their face. They made sure the speaker didn't have their badge on, as it would flash the lights reflection to the video camera. I also like that they wired the clip on microphones under your shirt so you would see the wires nor pull out the microphone accidentally. Very professional. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Martin Hannigan wrote: Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding it as a power of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter procedure to develop the how. We have one person banned for life and a day and we don't seem to have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but then we were forced to re-ban said miscreant. Please advise. I would do two things: characterize it as indefinite rather than permanent. Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. Marty (MLC) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Stephen Wilcox wrote: Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't think it hurts to keep things in the discussion every few months. i was on that MLC and was disappointed it had to be that way you may even want to try unbanning some time just to test the water, that would seem to be within the spirit of things, no? I would think that the basis for reconsidering an indefinite ban as the individual having suitably rehabilitated themselves in the eyes community. A ban should not be punishment for past misdeeds, rather a preclusion from future ones. The idea of a general amnesty at key inflection points is not a bad one. But revolutionaries can decide on their own whether throwing open the doors of the bastille is a good idea or not. Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
Martin Hannigan wrote: I'm not proposing that Dean come back. He's incorrigable. We need to provide a method to allow for what we've done and to allow the SC to do what they do. House cleaning. In the procedures doc that I am about to post after I get initial thoughts on a few nagging questions, I address just that and define a procedure that has a permanent ban being recommended by the MLC but enacted upon by the SC. Blah blah blah. Etc. I support that line of reasoning. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Richard A Steenbergen wrote: We might also want to invest in a timer that moves from green/yellow/red based on the alloted time. I noticed that some people were held to a rock solid standard, others weren't. It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. Wholeheartedly agreed. Even a $5 alarm clock with a big LCD on the stage would be an major improvement, it's difficult to tell how you're doing for time or if you should speed things up or slow things down when you're in the middle of a presentation. When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] The Peering BOF and the Fallout?
Martin Hannigan wrote: It's distracting when the speaker gets verbal time warnings(not anyones fault, it just is). Time ticks are needed, but there's a better way to do it, methinks. [ clip ] When I mc part of the program, I have a powerpoint slide deck with 10 5 and 1 minute markers which I place in the plane of view of the speaker at the appropriate moments. Not sure if the lightning talks speakers appreciate that but monday 12:00-13:00 ran smoothly. Thanks for sticking your computer in front of us while we're talking? I knew I could count on a contrarian opinion from someplace... Personally I've found it less intrusive than poking the speaker or using hand gestures... The point is that something non obtrusive would be better. The soft lighting of cue lights seems less intrusive, but they sure are damn expensive. I think I'll swing by Radio Shack and see if I can rig up a system for $10 + 9v. Alternate attempts at improvisation are of course welcome... ;) -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Cisco outage
Martin Hannigan wrote: Not for the content. Randy is a little excitable since he and the SC have been marginalized for the most part. AUP Item #8 seems to apply. I'm asking if it's what people really want. I'm prepared to pull the cord on the suicde belt in hopes that I can take the current mlc committee with me. This is the silliest rathole we've gone down since the construct was created. -M ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: AUP/autoresponders, rehashed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Awhile 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. I support this. Software that responds to mess sent to a mailing list with challenge response or out of office messages is badly written and disruptive. 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
