Here here ! -- J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Mar 20, 2021, at 19:13, scott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > :: The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > couple of years now > > Please let me put in my $0.02. I would like to ask that there're no changes. > For myself, it has been 24 years here and I see no problems. I enjoy the > off-topic as much as the on-topic...most times. If a person can't figure out > how to filter out a subject or sender in an email client they will have way > more problems trying to be a network engineer on anything but the tiniest of > networks. I would think a person who can't figure out how use filters on a > mail client would rather configure routers through the HTTP GUI, rather than > the CLI. Of course, one would not find an HTTP GUI on the bigger networks > dealt with on this list; only on the tiny networks. So they're beginning > learners and are, of course, welcome. They will lean a lot, just as I did in > the early days and do every day now days. > > In agreement with others here, randy's comment: > > "i do not find the volume or diversity on the nanog list problematic. > in fact, i suspect its diversity and openness are major factors in > it being the de facto global anything-ops list. perhaps we do not > need to fix that." > > Is spot on. > > And last, John Covici also hit the nail on the head and all network engineers > will recognize his comment "Keep it simple, please" as a very nice way of > saying KISS, which any network engineer who has had time on a network will > realize as the basic design principle. > > scott >
