seph wrote: > Simon Lyall <[email protected]> writes:
>>The recent thread about the Level3 outage ( the posts on the outage itself >>not the ongoing discussion ) once again showed that Outage threads are a >>problem area on the NANOG list. >> >>Thoughts? > My personal preference is to just leave it on na...@. It's easier for me > to check that, then check a dozen other things, and it seems > operationally relevant to the list members. I also filter my nanog mail, > I don't find 20 messages much of a burden. I'd say that I lean more toward Seph's point of view. Really, if we can go on and on about some random guy's DSL dissatisfaction, I think that outages on nanog proper are just fine. I like them, personally (it's a sickness, but I deal with it). It's good to be able to mention to friends and others in other places that the sudden inability to get to a certain place may be reasonable, and transient. It's a good thing, by and large. > If people feel like they can't speak freely on nanog for fear of being > quoted, I think that's a much bigger problem. Though I'm not sure what > the solution is. I don't think this has any answer, sadly. It's just the way things are. Either the list has a higher bar to entry (and who's going to do the policing?), or it gets infested with the network equivalent of the national enquirer. If it's newsworthy, and you happen to make a nice handy sound bite, you'll probably see your name in print pretty quick. -- Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. Brian W. Kernighan _______________________________________________ Nanog-futures mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
