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

["J. Hellenthal via NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>]

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 <surfer () mauigateway com> 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