joel jaeggli wrote:
Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the
SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position
that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC.
That's my point. Merit has numerous people working
Hundreds of messages, each to roughly 10,000 subscribers, when the
network has but a few upstreams. It's been old for days, can we please
find a way to intervene and bring this to a stop?
9,800 of the subscribers shouldn't all have to filter it out. I for one
don't want my NANOG conference
Alan Clegg wrote:
I understand why it's annoying... and it is disrespectful to the
speaker. Nothing like being the guy standing up there and 1/2 of the
audience not paying attention. I'd rather they not show up at all.
But there's nothing like being the guy (or gal) walking up to present,
Stephen Wilcox wrote:
Having said that, providing its just the main plenary then sure give
it a go - why not try a 1/2 day in the next nanog and then collect
the feedback after to see how it went.
Suggestion: if you're serious about considering this, announce your
intentions before
Martin Hannigan wrote:
And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And
probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say what
they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask for clue
help.
We're all busy individuals, trying to earn that paycheck
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me that this person commits only two crimes.
First, English is not their native language, which means
that people have to stop and think a bit in order to
understand the question. And secondly, this person does
not use the status-symbol brand of router
David Barak wrote:
--- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until this). And
probably won't respond further. Of course, my colleagues can say
what they want, but I don't see any reason why someone can't ask
for clue help.
Donald Stahl wrote:
The original question was whether basic networking questions not relevant
to large network operators were on topic for NANOG. Specifically whether
basic questions about MTU on a home DSL connection, or how to add multiple
default routes to FreeBSD (both by the same
William Norton wrote:
I also like that they wired the clip on microphones under your shirt
so you would see the wires nor pull out the microphone accidentally.
Very professional.
Not only professional, but if you run the wire around your body and have
the beltpack end up in front, you
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Let me rephrase. I'm always skeptical when I hear terms like a lot of
people told us... or everyone feels like or there's support for
xyz.
Who feels like that? Who supports xyz? Who told us? One PC member just
put someone into context so I think it's fair to make
Philip Smith wrote:
NANOG-futures is for discussing ways we can improve NANOG the community,
NANOG the mailing list, NANOG whatever-else we want to make it. It's not
really a place for whining about who did what or didn't etc - people
tend to kill thread once that starts.
Step 1: redirect
Randy Bush wrote:
for those of us who use our MUA's KillAllOfSubject command, having folk
adjust the subject of a wandering bs thread is not a feature.
For those of us who want to learn about 24x7 Support Strategies but
don't care to read about veggie oil and biodiesel as a staffing
13 matches
Mail list logo
