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

Sun Mar 21 00:32:44 UTC 2021

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 at 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
> 