[Outages-discussion] Outages lists configuration thoughts

[Brett Dikeman]

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 1:17 PM Matt Barton via Outages-discussion <
outages-discussion at outages.org> wrote:

> I appreciate the brainstorming, but I'm not sure what problem we're
trying to solve. Honestly, I don't know what's worse: the flood of "me too"
posts or the folks who get upset about the "me too" posts.
>
> So what I do is just delete them and move on.

When a professional list is not moderated, you rapidly and silently lose
high-value contributors. Memory biases are tricky, but I feel outages used
to have a lot more information from deep in the trenches by network
operator level folks, and low-SNR metoos have been growing. List decorum
slid significantly in the Great DownDetector And Mass Media Suck Debate of
2024, and there's been a noticeable uptake in nose-picking of late (see:
the discussion after a datacenter's chillers failed.)

Outages is one of very few mailing lists that doesn't bypass my inbox
because its value is diminished if I shove it into a folder. During a major
incident, low SNR posts are annoying due to their disruption/distraction,
as is trying to sift through a dozen posts for useful information. The
listserv used to quickly back up, too, with delivery sometimes taking hours.

There is a fair bit of evidence that online communities with enforced rules
around conduct are more useful than those that lack them. Outages was/is
supposed to be a professional list, and people should be expected to act
like it, and removed if they don't. To me, that means:

- post only when you have something informative or actionable for others to
contribute to the discussion
- no attachments and as simple formatting as possible
- quote appropriately
- no commentary not immediately and directly relevant to the matter at hand
- sig line as short as possible

I don't feel mangling email headers and such to redirect people to -discuss
is a good idea. On a technical level email header munging causes problems,
but also - to me, there are reasons people would reply to the original
message that are compatible with the list's purpose, such as adding
informative details about the incident/outage.

At one point I suggested to the powers-that-be that outages be moved to
held-for-approval by default, releasable by any of a dozen-ish volunteers
spread across timezones, with known-high-SNR individuals whitelisted.
Approval takes seconds (replying to the message with "approve" is all
that's necessary.) This would eliminate duplicate reports, dramatically
boost SNR, help listserv load, and be fast-responding with minimal
management overhead for everyone involved aside from periodically replacing
people in said moderation group.

-B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages-discussion/attachments/20240309/f4cbbcef/attachment.htm>