Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pureInternet
> MLC was discussing blogs recently. I don't think I like your > idea - I doubt many people will post to blog, but frankly, as > long as on-list traffic becomes operational, I'm all for that! The point is that one of the list features is a searchable web archive. By changing the software used to provide the archive to some blogging package, we won't subtract anything from what we have now. But we could have a more open AUP for blog comments than for list postings. People who feel more comfortable with newer Internet tools can subscribe to an RSS feed from the blog rather than the mailing list. The gateway would be one-way, i.e. no blog comments are fed back into the list. This would mean that every list member needs to have a username (could be list email address) and a password, but that is not unusual in the world of mailing lists. > > What we have here is a failure of the imagination. > (paraphrased from > > the > > 911 commission report) > Why don't you volunteer for MLC? (serious question). Probably because of my perception that it is a police force, not a team of gardeners. And because I am not one of the Internet old-timers, i.e. I only joined NANOG in 1994 which makes me one of the 3rd wave of newcomers. And I really don't approve of the cliquish approach that dominates a lot of the debate. This reminds me of an incident heading to a NANOG meeting in Tampa Florida. I was on the shuttle bus headed to the hotel and some of the engineers sitting right near the driver were proclaiming with pride that they were the people who actually run the Internet. At that time, it was probably true that the people on the NANOG list were the key players who ran the Internet's networking infrastructure and I think the cliquishness helped because it caused people to copy best practices from each other and grow the network faster than otherwise would have been possible. However, I don't believe that it is true any longer that NANOG members are the key players in running the Internet's networking infrastructure. Vendors have a much bigger role with their training and books and certifications. I think it is a mistake for NANOG to try to recover past glories and have such a narrow focus on so-called "Internet operations". --Michael Dillon ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pureInternet
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Should politics/culture/society be on-topic? Or should we maintain > > this list as *internet operations* list. > > What is *internet operations*? > > In the telco companies that operate most of the Internet, operations > does not include network design, choice of hardware, etc. It does > include things like Trouble-to-Resolve, Service Management and the > provisioning parts of the Lead-to-Cash processes. In these companies > network designer who are not in operations, make decisions about the BGP > architecture (communities, confederations, peering, etc). Sure. > I always thought that NANOG's remit was broader than that, so if the > term "internet operations" does not fit, and we want to have a list > where people know and understand the AUP and rarely violate it, then we > need to have a much clearer definition of things. It is not good enough > to say that the MLC members understand it. Everybody needs to understand > it. > > The original charter and AUP, which I had a hand in wordsmithing, were > created way back when the Internet was run by ISPs, small > entrepreneurial outfits in which people wore several hats. Some of those > outfits were companies, some were embedded in universities or telcos or > other large companies like IBM. NANOG tradition has been to have > discussion that wandered over many areas analogous to the way a job > description in an entrepreneurial outfit tends to wander over many areas > of human endeavour. However, herein lies the problem. By becoming a 'free-for-all' (pretty much), nanog-list lost its operational focus, and folks who have actual operational responsibilities have ceased reading due to amount of junk - resulting in more "banter" than operational content, which will self-perpetuate as more operational folks unsubscribe as more banter is added I'd like to make the list relevant to operations, again. That means, increasing signal/noise, and part of that is decreasing non-operational noise. Perhaps we should split list into nanog-operational and nanog-offtopic-gripes ? > Why can't we be more open about this and discuss things like the > definition of the terms we use? How can we allow discussion to be > reasonably broad as long as it is relevant and doesn't overcrowd other > issues? Why can't we be more creative in the use of technology and do > something like copy all message threads to a blog and have the > moderators cut off wandering threads on the list while allowing the > discussion to continue on the blog? MLC was discussing blogs recently. I don't think I like your idea - I doubt many people will post to blog, but frankly, as long as on-list traffic becomes operational, I'm all for that! > What we have here is a failure of the imagination. (paraphrased from the > 911 commission report) Why don't you volunteer for MLC? (serious question). -alex ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] [admin] RE: Creating a crystal clear and pureInternet
> Should politics/culture/society be on-topic? Or should we > maintain this list as *internet operations* list. What is *internet operations*? In the telco companies that operate most of the Internet, operations does not include network design, choice of hardware, etc. It does include things like Trouble-to-Resolve, Service Management and the provisioning parts of the Lead-to-Cash processes. In these companies network designer who are not in operations, make decisions about the BGP architecture (communities, confederations, peering, etc). I always thought that NANOG's remit was broader than that, so if the term "internet operations" does not fit, and we want to have a list where people know and understand the AUP and rarely violate it, then we need to have a much clearer definition of things. It is not good enough to say that the MLC members understand it. Everybody needs to understand it. The original charter and AUP, which I had a hand in wordsmithing, were created way back when the Internet was run by ISPs, small entrepreneurial outfits in which people wore several hats. Some of those outfits were companies, some were embedded in universities or telcos or other large companies like IBM. NANOG tradition has been to have discussion that wandered over many areas analogous to the way a job description in an entrepreneurial outfit tends to wander over many areas of human endeavour. Why can't we be more open about this and discuss things like the definition of the terms we use? How can we allow discussion to be reasonably broad as long as it is relevant and doesn't overcrowd other issues? Why can't we be more creative in the use of technology and do something like copy all message threads to a blog and have the moderators cut off wandering threads on the list while allowing the discussion to continue on the blog? What we have here is a failure of the imagination. (paraphrased from the 911 commission report) --Michael Dillon ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
