NZNOG People, I'd like to make a number of comments about events on this list over the last couple of days. This is partly because I simply don't have the time to respond individually to all of the emails sent to me. Sorry. But first, a brief chronology of some of this morning's events: 9:03 List notified that mastermithras(a)yahoo.co.nz has been unsubscribed 10:11 List notified that phuct up(a)msn.com has been unsubscribed 10:19 Abusive email with forged From address posted to the list 10:31 "^god" with address god(a)hackers.net.nz subscribes to the list 10:39 Address god(a)hackers.net.nz unsubscribed by administrator 11:00 Notice from Xtra received that originator of abusive email has been removed from Xtra's network. All of which makes sense to me, but it's taken us some time to get here. The current AUP process is written to allow a certain amount of stupidity to take place before people get unsubscribed. For myself, I'd prefer to keep it that way. Complaining to the List ----------------------- Over the last couple of days, we've seen a considerable number of postings to the list complaining about AUP breaches. I don't mind people emailing me directly, and I certainly don't mind people emailing the senders of such email directly either, but please don't send this sort of thing to the list. It does not seem to influence people who are being intentionally silly, but does swell the volume of non-operational postings. Moderation ---------- There have been a number of quite understandable suggestions of late that the list should become moderated, if only for a time. I remain unwilling to do this. This is partly to ensure that relevant operational material can be disseminated quickly. It is also because it doesn't look to me possible to square moderation in any circumstances with continuing denial that the administrator is responsible for the content of the list or its archive. Administration Head Count ------------------------- The existing process for dealing with idiocy in varying degrees relies on the issuing of warnings. Faster issuing of warnings would result in faster unsubscription of the determinedly anti-social. One way to achieve that would be to move from having a single list administrator to having more than one. Which raises the twin questions of whether there'd be any volunteers for such a role, and "In whom do the people trust?" - Donald Neal List Administrator -- Donald Neal | piano - a musical Technical Specialist | shipping line. Network Delivery | [ Graeme Garden ] Telecom Corp. NZ Ltd | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:31:53PM +1200, Donald Neal said:
The existing process for dealing with idiocy in varying degrees relies on the issuing of warnings. Faster issuing of warnings would result in faster unsubscription of the determinedly anti-social. One way to achieve that would be to move from having a single list administrator to having more than one. Which raises the twin questions of whether there'd be any volunteers for such a role, and "In whom do the people trust?"
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership? Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're up to. Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ, otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will have a closed membership). Cheers Si
- Donald Neal List Administrator
-- Donald Neal | piano - a musical Technical Specialist | shipping line. Network Delivery | [ Graeme Garden ] Telecom Corp. NZ Ltd |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership? Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ, otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will have a closed membership).
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie. network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who exactly fits the definition. How would he do that? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on this list are probably able to do so as well. Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO. -- Juha Saarinen
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Juha Saarinen wrote:
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie. network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
And I forgot to say the most important thing... the off-topic posters were ISP staff, which would presumably make them bona-fide NOGers. So closing the list sounds like a pointless remedy. -- Juha Saarinen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:17:24PM +1200, Juha Saarinen said:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership? Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ, otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will have a closed membership).
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie. network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not how NANOG operates. If they can handle the occasional outburst of off-topic messages, and I'm sure they get more of that on NANOG than on NZNOG, then the participants on this list are probably able to do so as well.
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is minimal, on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day, then there probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
Closing NZNOG would set a bad example, IMO.
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to grease the operation of the NO community? Cheers Si
I think the list is fine as it is. It was a small outburst, it was delt with, move on. NZNOG is so low volume now that it's a moot point. I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated. But hey, I've been wrong before. Dean (Unmoderated, Unrestricted list, and make the conference free while you're at it)
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 15:00, Dean Pemberton wrote:
I think the list is fine as it is. It was a small outburst, it was delt with, move on.
NZNOG is so low volume now that it's a moot point.
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
I agree with Dean, let's not get carried away over one incident. If
this sort of thing becomes a regular problem then we deal with it by
changing procedures but don't let one incident stampede us.
Personally I'd be happy to have the culprits back on the list (after a
suitable cooling off period) on the understanding that if they put a toe
out of line in future then they are out for good. That's generally the
line I take with infractions on our network.
The issue of restricting the list membership is tricky -- what about
people like Nevil Brownlee and myself, neither of us are directly
involved in network operations anymore.
--
Russell Fulton
On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:00 PM +1300 [NZDT],
Dean Pemberton
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
Thank you. -- © 2002 Hugh Lilly. | PGP ID: 0x064D2C0D blog: http://hugh.orcon.net.nz nntp//rss: http://www.methodize.org/nntprss Am I dead or alive? http://user.diedonline.com/status/1580
I second that !!
Terence Blyth
Managing Director
Computer Technologies Ltd
19 Alma Street
Box 584, Nelson
New Zealand
Phone ++ 643 545 9001
Fax ++ 643 545 9002
www.ctec.co.nz
PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
use
of the addressee(s) and may contain information, which is confidential
or
privileged. If you receive this email and you are not the addressee (or
responsible for delivery of the email to the addressee), please
disregard
the contents of the email, delete the email and notify the author
immediately.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Lilly [mailto:h.lilly(a)gmx.net]
Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 12:17 p.m.
To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz; Dean Pemberton
Subject: Re: [nznog] Moderation etc.
On Friday, March 28, 2003 3:00 PM +1300 [NZDT],
Dean Pemberton
I don't like the idea of closed lists. I'd rather help the youth of today to feel included rather than make them feel alienated.
Thank you. -- C 2002 Hugh Lilly. | PGP ID: 0x064D2C0D blog: http://hugh.orcon.net.nz nntp//rss: http://www.methodize.org/nntprss Am I dead or alive? http://user.diedonline.com/status/1580 _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
It's hard to see how that would work in an objective fashion. The members chosen to vet those wanting to join would have rather a lot of power, and power tends to get abused. Let's take a purely hypothetical example, where the chosen few decide not to let someone join the list. It could be that the person's with a company that competes against one or more of those that the list membership electors belong to. How would that go down?
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is minimal, on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day, then there probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
I don't think that a closed list would be of any use should ISP staff decide to sabotage the s/n ratio.
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to grease the operation of the NO community?
Well, if you want to "grease the operation" of a chosen few and exclude others, then no, you shouldn't care. It just seems to go against the whole Internet spirit, what you're proposing. -- Juha Saarinen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 03:02:54PM +1200, Juha Saarinen said:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
It's hard to see how that would work in an objective fashion. The members chosen to vet those wanting to join would have rather a lot of power, and power tends to get abused.
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100 email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
Let's take a purely hypothetical example, where the chosen few decide not to let someone join the list. It could be that the person's with a company that competes against one or more of those that the list membership electors belong to.
How would that go down?
Hypothetically, how do you know it's not happening now? Answer, you're reliant on the impeccable good name list admin and his employer. Why shouldn't you continue to rely upon that? I'm suggesting that a list member would have to make a fairly compelling case to preclude somebody joining. Otherwise, your request to join will proceed as usual, with just some delay as it gets rubber stamped through the list membership.
How is how NANOG operates relevant? It gets a lot more traffic - the effect on the s/n ratio of the occasional off-topic outburst is minimal, on NZNOG it's significant. If NZNOG got 50-100 posts a day, then there probably wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't.
I don't think that a closed list would be of any use should ISP staff decide to sabotage the s/n ratio.
So we shouldn't try to fix the s/n ratio, because we might fail?
To whom? Why do we care? Is this list here to set an example, or to grease the operation of the NO community?
Well, if you want to "grease the operation" of a chosen few and exclude others, then no, you shouldn't care.
It just seems to go against the whole Internet spirit, what you're proposing.
I'm proposing a meritocracy. It's entirely in keeping with the Internet spirit. Cheers Si
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100 email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
A "prospect"? It seems you're after some unholy mix of /. and the Mongrel NOG. The list is fine, and Don isn't doing too poor a job of looking after it. I don't think it's fair to ask him to take more responsibility for it than he already has, let alone more work.
Hypothetically, how do you know it's not happening now? Answer, you're reliant on the impeccable good name list admin and his employer. Why shouldn't you continue to rely upon that?
That doesn't quite follow. The list is open now, and you get chucked out if you misbehave. A closed list doesn't work like that.
I'm suggesting that a list member would have to make a fairly compelling case to preclude somebody joining. Otherwise, your request to join will proceed as usual, with just some delay as it gets rubber stamped through the list membership.
Seems pointless then.
So we shouldn't try to fix the s/n ratio, because we might fail?
I'm just objecting to pointless maneouvres that won't fix the s/n ratio, that's all.
I'm proposing a meritocracy. It's entirely in keeping with the Internet spirit.
No, you're proposing a closed club. But anyway... I don't want to continue this discussion. -- Juha Saarinen
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100 email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
I'm a great believer in leaving things alone. Currently we have a large number of people on the list who aren't exactly "network operators" . The vast majority of these people are no problem and don't even post. Some of them will post sometimes when something in their area comes up. People only cause a problem if they start posting in variance with the charter. If they do then they can be warned and if required removed. If they resubscribe and cause further problems then the list can be moderated until the go away. So far AFAIK this has only happened a couple of times in the last year or so and only this week has someone actually been removed. If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there are several people here that would be happy to help. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz
At 15:35 28/03/03 +1200, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
I'm picking that Don could blast through the membership and pick 50-100 email addresses that he knows are with operators/ISP's/whatever. Then when a prospect applies, it gets notified to the list, and unless anybody squawks on the list, they get put on.
I'm a great believer in leaving things alone. Currently we have a large number of people on the list who aren't exactly "network operators" . The vast majority of these people are no problem and don't even post. Some of them will post sometimes when something in their area comes up.
I agree with this. There are a lot of people that "lurk" on this list, both "network operators" and not, who most people aren't even aware of since they hardly ever post. However they often have something useful to say in the right situation. If the subscriber list was going to be built back up from scratch based on peer agreement about who is "ok" then a lot of these people would get a "who the heck are they" from the "regulars", and potentially be left out.
People only cause a problem if they start posting in variance with the charter. If they do then they can be warned and if required removed. If they resubscribe and cause further problems then the list can be moderated until the go away.
So far AFAIK this has only happened a couple of times in the last year or so and only this week has someone actually been removed.
The whole response is a bit of a kneejerk reaction IMHO...
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that.... Regards, Simon Byrnand Lurking network operatory type person iGRIN Internet
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that....
I agree with the above; I'm helping administer the NZLUG List for this very reason; the list admin was too busy right when we needed some fairly prompt attention to the list, so I offered to assist... The offer would stand for NZNOG too but I dare say there are people who are possibly 'better regarded' on here who should be filling that role. 2 or 3 admins in total - people who look at their email a lot, probably - would be good nominees here. Its only fair not to expect Donald to have to run the entire thing himself. :) I also disagree with the concept of a 'moderated' list. I did toy with suggesting moderated-subscription but I agree this would cause a lot more problems than it would solve .... a team of list admins who between them can monitor for 'idiot behavior' would be my best reccomendation. I was one of those 'young people' who needed to be under someones wing a few years ago and didn't really have the option - a few of you will probably remember that with a cringe - but it really is a steep learning curve for you guys and friendly guidance from NZNOG types really does go a long way. Cheers, Mark.
If Donald would like some help with list maintenance then I'm sure there are several people here that would be happy to help.
Good idea.... clamping down on people blatently abusing the list (as opposed to those that just wander a bit off topic from ocassionally) harder and faster is the answer, not trying to make it difficult for people to join. An extra person or two to help out with list maintainance may do that....
Despite soundling like an AOL newbie, I want to say <ME TOO> on this..
this list, in terms of subscribee's is pretty damn big.
When it comes to extra moderators I would probably nominate:
* Simon Lyall, who's ongoing moderation and maintenance of nz.* hasn't
gone unnoticed.
* David Zanetti, if he is still alive/subscribed to the list, as he has
moderation experience with nz.politics.announce.
Actually, that's it. I just went through my old archives way back to
1999 and when you sort by sender and fold threads you can see who tends
to get into a little bit of religious fervour (some of those old SRS &
buffoon threads are doozies).
No, I am not a big fan of usenet, but if you can deal with the crap pile
that is usenet, then nznog should be a walk in the park :)
--
James Tyson
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 14:45, Simon Blake wrote:
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie. network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
No. What I suggested was that he pick a few of the current members that he knows meets some basic defn of NZ network operator, and seed the list with them. Then, the list as a whole can choose who else joins. All I'm asking Don to do is seed an initial list, and if he misses anybody who is a legit operator then they'll be known to others on the list, and be (re)instated as members. I certainly don't expect any one person to be the sole arbiter of what constituted a network operator, but I'd expect the hive mind to have a fairly good idea.
Exactly what is the definition of a 'NZ network operator" though? Some of those who fit that description should be on this list far less than a few of those who do not fit in there at all. I believe if the above was done, it would come down to a case of who you know, not what you do or what you know. For example, would you grant me access to this list, i know I fit in the definition of a 'NZ network operator" better than others who would be granted access. But does anyone know that? I would like to see a few more admins, who take a stronger approach to OT ramblings of others. I understand Don couldnt act as quick as many would have liked, due to him having other responsibilitys. Had there been other administrators on this list with the ability to act, I am sure the previous threads would not have got as bad as they did. Take baby steps to solve the problem, not totally rebuilding something that isn't broken. Regards, Jeremy Brooking OASN: Id rather see 1 off topic rant that I can ignore, than 1 500k untrimmed unquoted top-posted on topic message :P
----- Original Message -----
I think you're probably asking a lot of Donald there. So he's to work out a definition of what exactly constitutes a NZ network operator (ie. network operators from other countries are banned) and then verify who exactly fits the definition. How would he do that?
Hi, I for one would be extremely disappointed if the list became "verified operators only" as it were..... I may not be an operator but I do work for an ISP and like to keep up with what is happening in the NZ networks without getting it "2nd hand" from others. I know of a few other "non-operator yet ISP" types who read this list and probably agree with my view. Just because a few idiots have caused some trouble shouldnt mean the rest of us should suffer. :( Please keep it open and free :) My 2c for the year.... Gavin Quayle QSI (Disclaimer: Opinions are mine and mine alone and don't represent my employer or any companies associated with that employer)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Simon Blake wrote:
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ, otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will have a closed membership).
I agree with Simon on this. andy
On Fri, 2003-03-28 at 14:07, Simon Blake wrote:
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership? Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are genuine NZ network operators
/first posting Hang on, what about us in the background ? I am here trying to learn. I get to sit at the back of the room and listen to Gurus talk - no better place to learn. I don't /dare/ post here - out of respect. Don't kick us off, please.. I don't care if I don't have permission to post, but being subscribed is important to me.
[....] Leave the web pages and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're up to.
spose.. /last posting /steve
They're all coming out of the wood work...
I'm not a network op but I look at this list with interest as I know do friends
of mine, I'm against the idea of moderating or closing this list because
although we lurkers don't generally post there may come a time where we have
something useful to post, or an on topic question...would you rather we harass
one of the members to post this us or email them individually asking them our
questions?
I generally have a lot of respect for NOs and although you maybe/are part of the
'elite', closing the list to people who don't have the 'right' job (even if they
have the knowledge or the desire to learn) seems to be going rather far to me.
Also you did say leave the archives open, I may just be weird (I have been told
so many times) but there is something different about being subbed to a list (a
long with my first point)
BTW, do you really want to see a message every times someone goes to subscribe?
- Karl
Quoting Simon Blake
Rather than moderate the content, why not just close list membership? Delete everybody off the list, add back on the people you know are genuine NZ network operators, and set the list up so that requests to join get sent to some group of moderators (or to the list). Then, vett new requests to join through the current members. Leave the web pages and archives public, so that the world can still read about what we're up to.
Yes, it's cliquey, yes, it's elitist, but well, who cares. It's the Network Operators Group - we need to get it a back on topic PDQ, otherwise it'll cease to have any relevancy to the community it seeks to serve, and it'll get replaced with something else (that probably will have a closed membership).
Cheers Si
participants (17)
-
Andy Linton -
Dean Pemberton -
Donald Neal -
Drew Whittle -
Gavin Quayle -
Hugh Lilly -
James Tyson -
Jeremy Brooking -
Juha Saarinen -
Karl B -
Mark Foster -
Russell Fulton -
Simon Blake -
Simon Byrnand -
Simon Lyall -
Steve Wright -
Terence Bllyth