Martin Hannigan wrote:
3. Cross posting is prohibited.
I think this needs more clarification, like Cross posting to other
lists is prohibited, CCing individuals are permitted. I see no
technical difference between cross posting to another list or just a
list if individuals.
8.
Alex Pilosov wrote:
8. Autoresponders sending mail either to the list or to the poster
are prohibited.
I also think this needs additional language to ensure that it is within
the realm of the authority of the MLC/NANOG. NANOG has no authority to
prohibit autoresponses that result in
Martin Hannigan wrote:
What would work is for people to post on topic so that the list is
interesting and relevant.
Since what people want to talk about is mostly off-topic for the nanog@
list, does this mean that NANOG itself is no longer interested in being
the venue for network operators
Adrian Chadd wrote:
Today's networking area is very very different from where I'm sitting.
Networking can be learnt reasonably successful from a book and consultants
are called in when things aren't quite working right or its time for an upgrade.
I have not met many consultants that I would
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
theres a lot more competition for meetings, and they have diversified -
the industry has evolved.
i think the SC should review the idea of 2 meetings per year tho, maybe
that will bring focus and relevance. can i ask you to take it to your
next SC meeting?
I don't
Joe Abley wrote:
No, there's a fixed overhead from having N x Merit FTEs doing NANOG
stuff year-round, housing NANOG servers, being covered by UMich
insurance, accounting, blah, blah. I'm not an accountant, as you can
probably tell, but I think that's the right high-level answer.
Just out
William B. Norton wrote:
The big $$$ is to the hotel - $105K for 1 mtg.
This is just for the conference rooms? That's a lot more expensive that
I would have thought.
The bottom line, I think you need a few FTEs no matter how you manage NANOG.
No argument there. There will always be a
