Pascal Gloor wrote: > > > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Obeying that I think the SWINOG group should send a response to the > > > FMG revision targeting very specifially these points with clear > > > technical background: > > > > [...] > > I second... but not it comes... shouldnt we, at least, create a SwiNOG > association? So we would probably have a bit more 'power' and people would > perhaps listen us more seriously.. Andre? any comments? Others comments are > also welcome ;-)
As I already answered to Fredy that in opinion we don't need that overhead and we don't need any more "power", we have plenty already. I think plain political issues are better served by the spin doctors and lobbyists of our employers. (With the exception for certain parts of this FMG revision where I gave the rationale). Lets stick to our original mission and don't make it complex and complicated. If it ain't broken, why fix it? One more thing: If we don't have any political agenda we (as a group) get regarded as the neutral technical experts to ask when politics is at its end. :-) -- Andre ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
