On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 06:55:33AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote: > Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly > prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world? > > All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion > about, is boundaries.
I understand this sentiment, as I've often felt the same way in other contexts. (And no doubt some of my own inept questions over the years have elicited the same feelings from others.) But I'd like to suggest that whatever that boundary is, we're nowhere near it. The list is not awash in an endless stream of elementary questions, nor is there any sign that it's going to be. In my opinion, it's a theoretical problem that we don't need to expend energy solving until/unless there is convincing evidence that it's going to transition to a real problem. And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this than was expended in providing the responses. I understand this, or at least I think I do, because I have my own control-freakish tendencies when it comes to running mailing lists. But after decades of doing so, I think I'm finally learning that it's not worth trying to anticipate every possible way things could go wrong and pre-emptively trying to address them. (And it it *does* become a real problem? Maybe "nanog-newbies", where people like me who often get lost in esoteric routing discussions can ask our naive questions of an audience that's prepared to address them.) ---Rsk _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
