[lacnog] Webinar: IPv6 Mythology (HOY 9 de Junio, 4 PM (UTC-0300)

[Fernando Gont]

Hello, Luis,

On 13/6/21 21:13, Luis Balbinot wrote:
[...]
> 
> I don’t see any problems with Fernando with his personal email and very 
> casually posting that to the list but the post also came from someone 
> from their marketing department and that made me a bit uncomfortable. I 
> think having someone from outside the operational area post to the list 
> is kind of intrusive, unsolicited and almost spam-like.

Thanks for your response and comments. You raise interesting issues, 
including:

1) Some sort of requirement to have people post to this list with their 
personal email (as opposed to, I assume, work/corporate email).

2) A requirement for people to belong to a certain community 
(operational) to be allowed/accepted to post to this list.

3) Some implicit assessment/social engineering/profile check of people 
who post to this list.


None of the above seem to be part of the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) of 
this list.

That said, here are my thoughts on each of the above:

Regarding #1:
I don't really follow what's the rationale for requiring people to post 
from a personal email address, or even how you could even assess whether 
an email address is personal or not.  While this could certainly be made 
a requirement of the AUP, I believe this would be the first (and only) 
mailing list with such kind of requirement. Even more, probably any 
attempt to codify this policy would be discriminatory (e.g., what makes 
domain X lesś acceptable than, e.g., @gmail.com ?)

Regarding #2:
Going through the mail archive for the last month or so, a quick 
assessment would seem to indicate that over 50% of the posters (if not 
more), currently do not hold operational roles (they may have held them 
in the past, though). So I believe such a "rule" will essentially forbid 
most of the subscribers from posting.  That aside, it would be 
interesting to see a definition of what "being part of the operational 
community" means. Currently working for an operator? Currently working 
for an operator *and* having an operational role?  Having had an 
operational role in the past (no matter what one is actually doing 
nowadays)?
As with the previous one, it would seem to me that any attempt to codify 
this kind of rule would end up in a rule that is, by definition, 
discriminatory.

Regarding #3:
One of the announcements of the webinar came from Maysa, and had no 
indication whatsoever on what her role within her employer actually is. 
As a result, I can only assume that people on this list saw a post from 
a newcomer, and decided to do some kind of social engineering/background 
check on the employer of said poster, and the role of the poster within 
her employer organization.  Let me just say that I find that to be 
inappropriate (at best).


Aside from not being part of the current AUP, I'd really like to check 
whether the above are implicit rules that are expected to govern this 
list, so that I can consider:

1) Posting an announcements of e.g. webinars myself, or, most likely,

2) Unsubscribing from this list, since I wouldn't personally be 
comfortable participating in a community where different rules apply to 
different people, or where I happen to be part of a privileged group 
(assumming I'm considered part of such privileged group) that is allowed 
to do things that other members are not allowed to.


Full disclosure: I asked Maysa to help announce the webinar in 
communities where the webinar might be of interest, since even working 
on the slideware itself was consuming too much time. Otherwise, the 
effort put in the webinar might be wasted, since folks wouldn't even 
hear about the webinar. I must say that the fact that this has resulted 
in an ad-hominem attack (i.e., people objecting the actor, as opposed to 
the act itself) has indeed surprised me '' and not in a good way.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando en gont.com.ar
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1