> But I worry slightly that we are spending time thinking up solutions
> to things that are not problems for most people subscribed to
> the list.
Do I take it you believe that the people who complain about postings to
the list are a minority and we should just ignore them? Even though this
sm
On 20-Feb-2007, at 04:37, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I worry slightly that we are spending time thinking up solutions
to things that are not problems for most people subscribed to
the list.
Do I take it you believe that the people who complain about
postings to
the list are a minority
I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
Folks used to complain that the mailing list has become useless, too many
msgs, too much noise, not much hate, etc. but we don't really have a way to
measure the utility of the list. It is too bad we don't have a way to vote
thumb
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 04:37, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> But I worry slightly that we are spending time thinking up solutions
> >> to things that are not problems for most people subscribed to
> >> the list.
> >
> > Do I take it you believe that the people who complain about
> > posti
> It certainly would be nice if all complainers would go away. I'm
> sure that would make the organization run much better. :-)
It's really time to change the list so that taglines can be added to
every message forwarded by the list. I vote that the above comment be
included as one of the tags, ch
In another message, William B. Norton wrote:
I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
I think that if the mailing list was moved from merit to its own server,
and out from under the tyranny of majordomo to mailman, that you'd be
shocked at the number of people who fi
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
In another message, William B. Norton wrote:
I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
I think that if the mailing list was moved from merit to its own server, and
out from under the tyranny of majordomo to mailman, that you'
Lucy Lynch wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
In another message, William B. Norton wrote:
I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
...the number of people who find the list valuable...
Majordomo will let you do this as well, it's an owner config
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but not really my point. In fact, sadly enough, the merit
majordomo does not even allow the "which" command, and that is just
plain dumb. Stupid. Silly.
Upon reflection, I regret that comment. Perhaps I might have phrased it
differently, had I reflected a bi
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Lucy Lynch wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
> > In another message, William B. Norton wrote:
> >
> >> I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
> >
> > I think that if the mailing list was moved from merit to its own server,
> > and
> Folks used to complain that the mailing list has become useless, too many
> msgs, too much noise, not much hate, etc. but we don't really have a way to
> measure the utility of the list. It is too bad we don't have a way to vote
> thumbs up or thumbs down on msgs. Could we implement something l
On 20-Feb-2007, at 11:05, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
[snip]
Sure, but not really my point. In fact, sadly enough, the merit
majordomo does not even allow the "which" command, and that is
just plain dumb. Stupid. Silly.
Upon reflection, I regret that comment. Perhaps I migh
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 11:05, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> migration from majordomo to Mailman.
And this should be requirements driven instead of
brand driven.
-M<
On 20-Feb-2007, at 13:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
And this should be requirements driven instead of
brand driven.
I have no reason to think that isn't happening.
>
>
> On 20-Feb-2007, at 13:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> > And this should be requirements driven instead of
> > brand driven.
>
> I have no reason to think that isn't happening.
>
>
That wasn't necessarily directed at you or Madame Etaoin.
-M<
On 20-Feb-2007, at 14:26, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On 20-Feb-2007, at 13:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
And this should be requirements driven instead of
brand driven.
I have no reason to think that isn't happening.
That wasn't necessarily directed at you or Madame Etaoin.
I know :-)
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William B. Norton wrote:
> I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list.
>
> Folks used to complain that the mailing list has become useless, too many
> msgs, too much noise, not much hate, etc. but we don't really have a way to
> measure the utility of the
How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think? -
Simon J. Lyall
Considering that this is a mailing list to supplement the NANOG meetings how
about if we restrict the poll participants to people who have attended a
NANOG in the last 12 months!
Ron
Simon Lyall wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William B. Norton wrote:
I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list...
How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think?
I'd suggest that this idea, while seemingly a simple answer, neglects
the purp
Ron Muir wrote:
Simon J. Lyall wrote:
How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think?
Considering that this is a mailing list to supplement the NANOG meetings how
about if we restrict the poll participants to people who have attended a
NANOG in the last 12 months!
20 matches
Mail list logo
