Rich Kulawiec wrote: > 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.
Think "definition of scope" as the boundary, not "rate of perceived off-topic messages" as the boundary - we've had messages that were far better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources. > And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this > than was expended in providing the responses. That's not the point: the point is to define NANOG, something that too many people have brought up, and too many others have shot down. I'm trying to get _some_ definition to it, because I think it's worthwhile. But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for trying to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock for a while (that's the "shut up" portion of RS's instructions to me). pt _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
