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

[scott <surfer () mauigateway com>]

:: 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