Re: [Nanog-futures] Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:49 46PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Also, the CC is required to at least skim every post. So believe me, they know what is happening - more than most since they can't plonk the k00ks. That was one of the better side-effects of my departure from the IESG and all WG posts -- I was now free to plonk certain people. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Michael Dillon wrote: and what makes you think that there is anyone looking after the mailing lists any more. There have been few network operational threads in recent months, and the Jim Fleming IPv3 bot is given free rein on the NANOG lists. [snip] I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered to be on the CC. IOW: Put up or shut up. Since I have not volunteered to be on the CC, and would not serve if asked, I will only thank them profusely and beg them not to give up amid the criticism they constantly receive. Thank you Communications Committee Members! -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating. Sure it's thankless work if you do it in secret and in silence. But the occasional message to the list wouldn't hurt. People WOULD feel thankful if they see that the CC is making an attempt. So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered to be on the CC. Right, so you are an unvolunteer on the CC. Why do we only hear from unvolunteers? --Michael Dillon
Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:39 45PM, Michael Dillon wrote: I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating. Sure it's thankless work if you do it in secret and in silence. But the occasional message to the list wouldn't hurt. People WOULD feel thankful if they see that the CC is making an attempt. So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered to be on the CC. Right, so you are an unvolunteer on the CC. Why do we only hear from unvolunteers? There are some benefits to them not acting too quickly -- I finally had enough motivation to figure out what the bugs were in my plonk script... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
[Reply-to set.] On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Michael Dillon wrote: I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating. What would you have them say? I am not at all certain commenting publicly on individual posters is a good idea. So should they say yeah, we've read the blather too, and we're .. uh .. what? Also, the CC is required to at least skim every post. So believe me, they know what is happening - more than most since they can't plonk the k00ks. Oh, and feeding the trolls only makes their job harder. Perhaps you could pitch in by resisting temptation? Perhaps ALL of you could pitch in? :) -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?]
-Original Message- From: Michael Dillon [mailto:wavetos...@googlemail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:40 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Cheers to the Communication Committee [was: Likely /8 Scenario - Carriers will TAKE what they want ?] I guarantee you the Communications Committee is on the job. What's more, they are doing a GREAT job - for no money and apparently no gratitude. It is worse than thankless, no matter what they do they will be derided. Filter someone and they get flamed. Leave someone allowed to post and they get reamed. I'm shocked anyone would actually want the job. So why can't the Communications Committee do a little communicating. Sure it's thankless work if you do it in secret and in silence. But the occasional message to the list wouldn't hurt. People WOULD feel thankful if they see that the CC is making an attempt. So, I propose a new rule: To flame the CC, you MUST have volunteered to be on the CC. Right, so you are an unvolunteer on the CC. Why do we only hear from unvolunteers? Hello: The Communications Committee follows a published procedure for handling violations of the AUP, found at http://www.nanog.org/governance/communications/warningpolicy.php. The process is not instantaneous, but is designed to insure we are not acting with undue haste when taking action against a particular list participant. We are always open to suggestions and comments regarding the process and the best forum for that is nanog-futures. This is also an appropriate venue for discussing the idea of more formal and/or frequent notifications from the Communications Committee regarding actions we have taken. Kind Regards, Michael Smith On behalf of the Communications Committee
