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

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

I'm not complaining about the volume or diversity, just trying to help solve the concerns of those that are. 


That said, officially allowing some of the other types of conversation would likely increase the volume and diversity. 
How much, who knows? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Randy Bush" <randy () psg com> 
To: "Rod Beck" <rod.beck () unitedcablecompany com> 
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:06:10 PM 
Subject: 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 

--- 
randy () psg com 
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy () psg com` 
signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery