Re: shim6 rides again (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

["Per Heldal" <heldal () eml cc>]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:56:51 +0000 (GMT), "Edward B. DREGER"
<eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net> said:
[snip]
> Per, I'd like to take exception with your "exclude small companies" 
> remark.  This thread is about tighter engineering and ops involvement, 
> so why shoot down those who have the two tightly coupled?  Why eschew 
> people who work both sides of the fence?


Sorry, the following sentence came out all wrong due to last minute
cutnpaste: 
  Most nanog'ers, with the exception of those 
  representing small companies which don't 
  separate engineering from operations, belong 
  in the engineering category anyway.

...quite the opposite of what I ment to say. Most nanog'ers work in
engineering. The problem is a lack of ops-people turning these
xOG-groups ito xEG-groups instead.

PS! I prefer tight integration of operations and engineering. I'd say
it's good for engineering-staff to do ops-work from time to time (eat
their own dog food;). Organisations that practise job-rotation generally
have the better solutions. 

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/