I mean, the reference to its previous existence was from 23 years ago. A lot has changed since 2002. I'm not totally sure the archeology is really worth it on this one, especially for a non-binding guideline.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 10:44 AM Dorn Hetzel <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd be curious if anyone knows why the requirement was removed? Who > thought that was a necessary and good thing? > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 8:42 AM Tom Beecher via NANOG < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Bill- >> >> My committee affiliations are not relevant. That being said if I am ever >> responding on behalf of one of my committee roles I always make that very >> clear. >> >> The information in question is publicly available on the NANOG website. In >> fact, you found the link yourself. Any plain reading of that webpage >> answered your direct question as to what the current guidance is. >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 9:34 AM William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 6:16 AM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> What should we >> > >> consider to be the current guidance? >> > > >> > > You linked to the currently published mailing list guidelines, >> therefore >> > > you have already answered your own question. There is no current >> > > requirement for real names to be used on the mailing list. >> > >> > You're on the NANOG Moderation Committee? No? Maybe let someone who is >> > think about it and offer an answer. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Bill Herrin >> > >> > >> > -- >> > For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/ >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NANOG mailing list >> >> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RWUBHGVRC7Q7WVU5NC27X5ZXFD4SU2ZW/ > > _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/M2ENUAJ4RRM4XB266OYLSHBNOELPGUK2/
