Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

. On 21/03/2021 17:29, Willy Manga wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/03/2021 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: >> Message: 13 >> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:46:57 -0600 >> From: David Siegel >> [...] >> The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a >> couple of years now, with

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/25/21 03:13, Robert Brockway wrote: Let's keep in mind that it is not fanciful that networks may need to be built from the ground up again. Just maintaining and upgrading the current installed base is enough work as it is. And it cannot be done efficiently without having a true

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: The problem comes when the younger generation *does* need access to the same knowledge - and the older generation is unreachable and/or actually gone. Exactly. Let's keep in mind that it is not fanciful that networks may need to be built from the

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/23/21 22:33, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: The problem comes when the younger generation *does* need access to the same knowledge - and the older generation is unreachable and/or actually gone. I've been passionate about keeping the work shop style of the early 2000's going, but it's

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/23/21 20:14, Sabri Berisha wrote: Most of the more effective troubleshooting techniques will require some sort of CLI or CLI-like output. In times of crisis, you'll want to be able to type "show ip bgp summary", instead of waiting for your browser to send a javascript request to a

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Nail -> Head <- Hammer Well put ! I don’t know if it could have been put better than that. -- 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 23, 2021, at 10:57, Emil Pfeffer wrote: > > On Tue, Mar

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Agree. I’ve had it filtered to a casual folder for 5 years now. I appreciate the banter. Abilities to sort and shred would be great. While I miss mail, I’m OK using browser code if it can make nanog-l more relevant. $0.02 only On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 18:31 Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Thu,

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:39:49 -, Emil Pfeffer said: > The generational gap is not an issue it is how things need to be. The network > engineering the younger generation deals with is not the same networking the > old > generation deals with but built upon this old networks. This two

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 2:35 PM scott > wrote: Well, now we are likely find out what happens when Discord is bought: "Microsoft in talks to buy Discord messaging platform - sources"

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Nope. https://www.discourse.org/ != https://discord.com/ On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 2:35 PM scott wrote: > > Well, now we are likely find out what happens when Discord is bought: > > > "Microsoft in talks to buy Discord messaging platform - sources" > > >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Well, now we are likely find out what happens when Discord is bought: "Microsoft in talks to buy Discord messaging platform - sources" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-discord-m-a/microsoft-in-talks-to-buy-discord-messaging-platform-sources-idUSKBN2BE320 scott

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

    Hey, I did some OS/2 network driver for SNA over X.25 card using a PRI =D.     But its all a question of workflow...  Fake busy work created by devices/apps battling for your attention ain't my cup of tea. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc.

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

- On Mar 23, 2021, at 1:09 AM, Mark Tinka mark@tinka.africa wrote: Hi, > I'm of the opposite view... front-end shiny GUI's are the risk. I'd > babysit them before I let them leave the house. For a long time. Children of the magenta line... Most of the more effective troubleshooting

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:20:14AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > "But why it should or shouldn't be clicked..." > > Sorta like most man pages. > They both need prior knowledge to use. We tend to simplify things in order to save time but then the new generation comes in and thinks the simple

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

t: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:11:44 AM Subject: Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? On 3/21/21 03:45, Eric Kuhnke wrote: But it's another thing to consider that we have a whole new generation of people who don't know and don't care what's going undernea

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 03:48:02PM -0600, David Siegel wrote: > We already have a group on Facebook, and it has it's uses. Like sharing > group pictures from events and other social-y stuff. yeah, that's all i need, is to get reprimanded at work while reading up on NANOG things, because Wish

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/23/21 11:37, Alfie Pates wrote: More opinions, from someone old and jaded enough to prefer IRC but quite a bit younger than the NANOG mailing list itself! I feel like Mattermost bridged into a private IRC server (Matterbridge is really good at puppetry these days:

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

More opinions, from someone old and jaded enough to prefer IRC but quite a bit younger than the NANOG mailing list itself! I feel like Mattermost bridged into a private IRC server (Matterbridge is really good at puppetry these days: https://github.com/42wim/matterbridge) would cover the widest

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Discourse is completely open source. We could run our own instance, if we chose to. Currently, we opted for third party hosting, but we shift to self hosting at anytime. All data is ours, and could be backed up and self-hosted in a few hours. For our beta test we imported the entire mailing

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/21 15:14, Mike Hammett wrote: I would love to have HTTP GUI that just does all of the dirty work. However, a sufficient number of people affiliated with that organization do indeed need to be able to CLI their way through the troubleshooting process for when the HTTP GUI inevitably

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/21/21 16:03, Noah wrote: When we requested for feedback, them gen-z cried out loud for interactions to happen on some social media app through groups or channels, and since they are the target audience and the majority, we settled for discord and telegram which they actively engage

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/21/21 03:45, Eric Kuhnke wrote: But it's another thing to consider that we have a whole new generation of people who /don't know and don't care/ what's going underneath the GUI and might not be able to do anything with the OS running on bare metal, if they have to. If we intend to

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/21/21 03:34, David Siegel wrote: ...not to mention that all mature networks are moving more towards GUI front ends for their automated network.  As the complexity of a network increases, CLI access becomes considerably more risky. The idea that "real engineers use the CLI" is

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/21/21 01:52, Brielle wrote: This is how I’m viewing a lot of this too. It’s like the posts on stack exchange et al, Reddit, and various forums that are just closed with “fixed” and no details or follow up. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a mailing list with an archive since the

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 23:43, Tom Beecher wrote: A large portion of these emails lately have contained some variation of 'contact me off list'. How does that provide any benefit to the community? Is anyone else in the community getting any information about what providers may be on a pathway that would

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 16:24 -0700, Edward McNair wrote: > I don’t understand the impact. Those who are comfortable with using > the mailing list via email would just keep doing what they are doing > now. With the exact same email address. There should be no procedural > changes. In theory, we

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mar 22, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Edward McNair wrote: > > That said, we are going to do extensive test with the board, staff, NANOG > committees, and beta testers. No changes will be made without extensive > testing, committee and community feedback, and board approval. We will not > make any

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mar 22, 2021, at 6:01 PM, scott wrote: > > One last thing before I stop. How would the numerous NANOG archives work > when everything is on Discourse? The same? Absolutely not! The archives on Discourse and the like, along with everything else, is subject to the marketing-driven

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

I don’t understand the impact. Those who are comfortable with using the mailing list via email would just keep doing what they are doing now. With the exact same email address. There should be no procedural changes. In theory, we could make the change tomorrow, and you shouldn’t notice a

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 16:08 -0600, David Siegel wrote: > We are not anticipating any material impacts to any subscribers, > whether real people or list archivers. The material impact of moving to discourse will be the effective loss of numerous active members. I would suspect, also, that this

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

My interpretation of Scott's message was "what's happening to the existing archived content?". On 3/22/21 4:08 PM, David Siegel wrote: We are not anticipating any material impacts to any subscribers, whether real people or list archivers. Does that mean that the existing archives will both

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> > why not confine the effort to the one need that seems > to clearly exist: a place for network engineers to solicit vendors of > the goods and services that network engineers buy? > If there's a real need for that ( which my voicemail and email might say is debatable :) ) , then someone could

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

We are not anticipating any material impacts to any subscribers, whether real people or list archivers. On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:03 PM scott wrote: > > One last thing before I stop. How would the numerous NANOG archives > work when everything is on Discourse? The same? > > scott > >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

One last thing before I stop.  How would the numerous NANOG archives work when everything is on Discourse?  The same? scott

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/2021 11:43 AM, Edward McNair wrote: Our mailing list is a clear indication that size does not fit all. -- Could you elaborate on that?  This assumes everyone agrees with the statement.  I don't think

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

We already have a group on Facebook, and it has it's uses. Like sharing group pictures from events and other social-y stuff. It's not so effective as a community forum in my opinion, although I am a member of many facebook groups who use it in exactly that way and the basic functionality is

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

I cannot see how that would be any different from now things are now. My idea would be to expand the amount of categories that are available, instead of having one just one big bucket for everyone. Our mailing list is a clear indication that size does not fit all. Edward McNair Executive

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

We currently have a beta instance of Discourse running: https://www.discourse.org/features It gives us the same functionality as Mailman, with a more flexible, modern interface, and many new features. We will keep the community posted as we explore its

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/2021 4:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: The migration happened just a month or two ago. Are we talking about the same thing? TBH, most discussion in the WISP space has moved to Facebook. The busy WISPA mailing lists used to get about 20k messages per year. When I last checked, they were

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> On 21/03/2021 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > > Message: 13 > > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:46:57 -0600 > > From: David Siegel > >[...] > > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > > couple of years now, with the goal of creating a modern interface that the

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 8:56 AM Mike Hammett wrote: > That seems like a reasonable proposal. NANOG-OffTopic, NANOG-Discuss, > NANOG-BizDev, NANOG-xyz, something (more more than one something). Hi Mike, This conversation started because someone got called to carpet for soliciting a vendor on

Re: [External] Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 9:16 AM Karl Auer wrote: > Without a word of exaggeration, it operates as if the developers had > never seen a working mailing list. Quoting, signatures, sender > addresses, reply-to addresses, HTTP vs text, archiving, threading, > configuration - you name it, they screwed

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:34 AM Noah wrote: > > Well baby boomers & gen-x will struggle to dump mail...I mean it simple > and

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/21 10:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > The migration happened just a month or two ago. Are we talking about the same > thing? I'm talking about wirel...@wispa.org which started after isp-wirel...@isp-wireless.com went away. What sad is the archives from this are gone too. > TBH, most

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/21 7:00 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: TBH, most discussion in the WISP space has moved to Facebook. The busy WISPA mailing lists used to get about 20k messages per year. When I last checked, they were down to 5k or so and on a downward trend. Meanwhile, the Facebook groups have exploded,

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 08:05 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > Usually efforts like this suck, but whatever WISPA did this year with > the migration from a mailman system to an integrated forum\mailing > list solution seems to work really well. It's not exactly like > mailman, but it works very well.

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

.org Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:21:23 AM Subject: Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? On 3/22/21 9:05 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Usually efforts like this suck, but whatever WISPA did this year with the > migration from a mailman system to an integrat

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, 16:30 Willy Manga, wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/03/2021 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > > Message: 13 > > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:46:57 -0600 > > From: David Siegel > >[...] > > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > > couple of years

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/22/21 9:05 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Usually efforts like this suck, but whatever WISPA did this year with the > migration from a mailman system to an integrated forum\mailing list solution > seems to work really well. It's not exactly like mailman, but it works very > well. I used to

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke" To: "David Siegel" , "nanog@nanog.org list" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 8:45:38 PM Subject:

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Bush" To: "Rod Beck" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:06:10 PM Subject: Re: Perhaps it's ti

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "David Siegel" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:46:57 PM Subject: Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG l

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Perhaps this discussion should return to topic (communicating between humans with common interests over extremely diverse languages and environments). Facilitating communication with hardware should be a discussed as a separate topic. Jim - Deliberately posted on top. > On Mar 21,

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Hi, On 21/03/2021 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > Message: 13 > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:46:57 -0600 > From: David Siegel >[...] > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > couple of years now, with the goal of creating a modern interface that the >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

And some of the lessons of group creation on USENET was: 1. You don't create a sub-topic to try to generate discussion. So for example you don't create talk.baseball.redsox because no one ever posts about the redsox in talk.baseball. It doesn't work. Not really relevant here tho it might become

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 20/03/2021 21:34, Stan Barber wrote: +1 -Hank +1 from the peanut gallery On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Allen Kitchen mailto:allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: i do not find the volume or

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> ...not to mention that all mature networks are moving more towards GUI > front ends for their automated network. As the complexity of a network > increases, CLI access becomes considerably more risky. > > The idea that "real engineers use the CLI" is dinosaur thinking that will > eventually

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/2021 3:34 PM, David Siegel wrote: ...not to mention that all mature networks are moving more towards GUI front ends for their automated network.  As the complexity of a network increases, CLI access becomes considerably more risky. The idea that "real engineers use the CLI" is

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Can we end this troll 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 20:48, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > >  > It's one thing to use a GUI tool when it's convenient and quick. I think >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:54:57AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > That seems like a reasonable proposal. NANOG-OffTopic, NANOG-Discuss, > NANOG-BizDev, NANOG-xyz, something (more more than one something). there used to be a thing called USENET. it facilitated a forum-like interface to

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

It's one thing to use a GUI tool when it's convenient and quick. I think anyone that's ever experienced setting up a Unifi controller would probably prefer provisioning a new 802.11ac AP from the GUI rather than doing it manually at a command line. But it's another thing to consider that we have

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

...not to mention that all mature networks are moving more towards GUI front ends for their automated network. As the complexity of a network increases, CLI access becomes considerably more risky. The idea that "real engineers use the CLI" is dinosaur thinking that will eventually land those

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/2021 2:47 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 5:13 PM scott > wrote: [...]  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

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 5:13 PM scott wrote: [...] > 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 >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 2:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > 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. +1 -- Bryan Fields

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

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 wrote: > >  > :: The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > couple of years now

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

:: 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

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 10:54:57AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: > That seems like a reasonable proposal. NANOG-OffTopic, NANOG-Discuss, > NANOG-BizDev, NANOG-xyz, something (more more than one something). > > The other lists still wouldn't allow promotion, but you could > make inquiries and discuss

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

In my opinion we have two very different types of 'contact me off list' things going on here. We have commercial solicitations and people looking to make contacts for buying transport circuits, capacity, etc. And then on the other hand we have 'contact me off list' asks related to network

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> On Mar 20, 2021, at 3:44 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > A large portion of these emails lately have contained some variation > of 'contact me off list'. How does that provide any benefit to the > community? Is anyone else in the community getting any information > about what providers may be on

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

My 2c on this is that, in my role as ISOC streammeister, it is frustrating that I have no way of notifying NOs when I have the occasional technical webcast, e.g. http://bit.ly/MANRSTechTalks If discourse might permit that, then bring it on! joly -- -- Joly

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 12:46:57PM -0600, David Siegel wrote: > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > couple of years now, with the goal of creating a modern interface that the > younger generation of engineers will be more comfortable using. This isn't a valid

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

I find it interesting that every time a company harvests email addresses from the list and starts sales calls, the pitchforks come out right quick (even though it's a public mailing list, what do we expect will happen?). But if an individual is running their business off the list, that's

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> Agreed. Don't fix what isn't broken. > > > -Original Message- > From: "Mark Tinka" > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:33pm > To: "Randy Bush" , "Rod Beck" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sub

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> Agreed. Don't fix what isn't broken. ryuu.rg.net:/Users/randy> whois oldnog.org GeekTools Whois Proxy v5.0.6 Ready. Checking access for 162.195.241.81... ok. Checking server [whois.publicinterestregistry.net] Results: NOT FOUND Last update of WHOIS database:

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Agreed. Don't fix what isn't broken. -Original Message- From: "Mark Tinka" Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:33pm To: "Randy Bush" , "Rod Beck" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Subject: Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhanc

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 20:06, Randy Bush wrote: 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. Simple. As. That. Mark.

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

+1 from the peanut gallery On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Allen Kitchen < allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush wrote: > >> i do not find the volume or diversity on the nanog list problematic. >> in fact, i suspect its diversity and openness

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush wrote: > 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. > > randy > > >

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > From: "Eric Kuhnke" mailto:eric.kuh...@gmail.com>> > To: "Matthew Petach" mailto:mpet...@netflight.com>> > Cc: "NA

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" > *To: *"Matthew Petach" > *Cc: *"NANOG" , adm...@nanog.org > *Sent: *Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:43:41 PM > *Subject: *Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG > list.

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

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. randy --- ra...@psg.com `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 8:54 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: And adding "topic" tags to the subject line doesn't actually help the food-fight scenario, as those can break out even in [TOPIC] tagged threads. To tilt it the rest of the way from sub-optimal to outright pessimal is the fact that some subscribers

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 9:54 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: That seems like a reasonable proposal. NANOG-OffTopic, NANOG-Discuss, NANOG-BizDev, NANOG-xyz, something (more more than one something). The NANOG list seems to be leveraging Mailman, which does support topics. The topic feature allows you to subscribe

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke" To: "Matthew Petach" Cc: "NANOG" , adm...@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 6:43:41 PM Subject: Re: Pe

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 6:13 AM, Niels Bakker wrote: * r...@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) [Sat 20 Mar 2021, 14:03 CET]: 2. This is a low-traffic list, so even without appropriate mail client support it's really not a big deal. The volume isn't the point, the S:N ratio is. Mails like this thread's starter are

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 16:54, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: Unfortunately, the *rest* of the thread did more damage to Friday's S:N ratio than the original post did. This! There are many threads on here I don't find useful after 2 posts. So I'll just gloss over new posts on that thread (if not outright

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 14:13:04 +0100, Niels Bakker said: > * r...@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) [Sat 20 Mar 2021, 14:03 CET]: > >2. This is a low-traffic list, so even without appropriate mail client > >support it's really not a big deal. > > The volume isn't the point, the S:N ratio is. Mails like this

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On 3/20/21 15:13, Niels Bakker wrote: The volume isn't the point, the S:N ratio is. Mails like this thread's starter are off-topic and reduce the value of the list to its subscribers. Your reasoning is easy, common and fallacious. Plenty of volume being created for something - I presume

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

* r...@gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec) [Sat 20 Mar 2021, 14:03 CET]: 2. This is a low-traffic list, so even without appropriate mail client support it's really not a big deal. The volume isn't the point, the S:N ratio is. Mails like this thread's starter are off-topic and reduce the value of the list

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:28:31PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote: > If only we had some way to segregate out different topics > of interest or disinterest, so that people who weren't interested > in questions about bandwidth availability could unsubscribe > from those topics, and only subscribe to

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

, March 19, 2021 12:43 AM To: Matthew Petach Cc: NANOG ; adm...@nanog.org Subject: Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...? Perhaps the sales, marketing and 'business development' people who've never typed "enable" or "configure" into a

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Indeed. Stay tuned. :-) On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 4:30 PM Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:37 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> CC back to the mailing list for visibility, since I ate the CC list. >> >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 1:31 PM Tom Beecher wrote: >> >>> Rod- >>> >>> Please

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Perhaps the sales, marketing and 'business development' people who've never typed "enable" or "configure" into a router a single day in their lives might be better served with a dedicated list that is mission focused on bizdev, and not operational issues. On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 3:29 PM Matthew