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

Hank Nussbacher hank at interall.co.il
Sun Mar 21 05:44:47 UTC 2021


On 20/03/2021 21:34, Stan Barber wrote:

+1

-Hank

> +1 from the peanut gallery
> 
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Allen Kitchen 
> <allenmckinleykitchen at gmail.com <mailto:allenmckinleykitchen at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush <randy at psg.com
>     <mailto:randy at psg.com>> wrote:
> 
>         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
> 
> 
>     +1 (or as much more as I can be credited for)
> 
>     ..Allen
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list