<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>I'm not complaining about the volume or diversity, just trying to help solve the concerns of those that are.<div><br></div><div>That said, officially allowing some of the other types of conversation would likely increase the volume and diversity. How much, who knows?<br><br><div><span name="x"></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br>Midwest-IX<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<span name="x"></span><br></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com><br><b>To: </b>"Rod Beck" <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org><br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:06:10 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?<br><br>i do not find the volume or diversity on the nanog list problematic.<br>in fact, i suspect its diversity and openness are major factors in<br>it being the de facto global anything-ops list. perhaps we do not<br>need to fix that.<br><br>randy<br><br>---<br>randy@psg.com<br>`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy@psg.com`<br>signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery<br></div><br></div></div></body></html>