[ moved to futures ]
> http://www.nanog.org/resources.html would be an ideal place to place a
> link to the wiki.
the sc has been asking for that for years.
randy
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Fri, 3/21/08, Martin Hannigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > And the MLC didn't bother responding to either (until
> > > this). And
> >
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
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--- 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.
Ex
Joe Provo wrote:
> "Large network operators" appears no where in the charter
> (http://www.nanog.org/charter.html) nor AUP
> (http://www.nanog.org/aup.html). While I agree that questions on
> much rudimentary things (and vendor-specific for that matter) are
> better *served* in other fora, they
[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 ro
> Since when does "the sharing of knowledge for the Internet
> operations community" extend to "home user questions"?
Let's start by refreshing everyone's memory:
ls it possible to have 2 default routes?
or how can I do the rebundant when the route is still working either
eth1 or eth2 dow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Funny thing is that if you read the first sentence in section 3 (Mission)
> of the NANOG charter, it seems to include that goal.
>
>The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North
>American region for education and the sharing of knowledge
>for the I
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:59:27AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
> Think "definition of scope" as the boundary, not "rate of perceived
> off-topic messages" as the boundary - we've had messages that were far
> better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources.
Oh, I agree tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Funny thing is that if you read the first sentence in section 3 (Mission)
> of the NANOG charter, it seems to include that goal.
>
>The purpose of NANOG is to provide forums in the North
>American region for education and the sharing of knowledge
>for the I
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-topi
> For the sake of discussion, let's come up with some semblance
> of boundaries so we know whether we'll get scolded for
> leading a guided tour or not. If someone's rude, we can
> handle that separately.
One strategy that works well is to make a habit of
leading a guided tour and just ignore
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 06:55:33AM -0500, Pete Templin wrote:
> Last I heard, there were ~9,000 subscribers to this list. Is it truly
> prudent of the list to be tech support for all the world?
>
> All I'm asking for, and all I'm trying to generate thoughtful discussion
> about, is boundaries.
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
> We were all beginners at once, and limiting the participants
> to the 5 or
> 6 North American networks that would fit into the category of
> large would just be completely pointless, and a sure thing to
> signal the end.
NANOG has always been a forum *IN* North America *FOR* all people
worl
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:15:00AM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
[snip]
> If that's the case then might I sugggest changing the pages that discuss
> what is, and what is not, apropriate for the mailing list? Those questions
> were not relevant to large network operators but if that is no longer the
> 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.
If that's the case then might I sugggest changing the pages that discuss
what is
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
> > current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
> Rob,
>
> The messages in question were posted to NANOG not -futures.
And the MLC didn't b
> Randy, you are on the FreeBSD lists and you see the same "where do I
> go to get an answer to..." message that I do when comes out every
> month. Why not have the same thing for NANOG, but have it be on the
> FAQ page, or some other NANOG-hosted page if not the FAQ?
i think this is a good ide
On Mar 20, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Cat Okita wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Michael Smith wrote:
>> I think we're saying the same thing; I'm advising we expand the FAQ
>> to
>> include off-NANOG resources that will be helpful to the new folks,
>> rather than having 50 people refer someone to the same o
On Mar 20, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> Michael Smith wrote:
>> how about we all agree to politely sent the new member to
>> http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html when it's obvious they are asking
>> questions that could be better answered elsewhere?
>
> i hope all my competitors treat their
Michael Smith wrote:
> how about we all agree to politely sent the new member to
> http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html when it's obvious they are asking
> questions that could be better answered elsewhere?
i hope all my competitors treat their new customers that way.
how about
o if it is at all o
On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Pete Templin wrote:
> James R. Cutler wrote:
>
>> If NANOG is to continue as a robust and vital organization, we cannot
>> afford to be nasty to newcomers.
>>
>> If NANOG is to die, we can continue arbitrary nastiness and
>> restrictions
>> on simple asking of questi
James R. Cutler wrote:
> If NANOG is to continue as a robust and vital organization, we cannot
> afford to be nasty to newcomers.
>
> If NANOG is to die, we can continue arbitrary nastiness and restrictions
> on simple asking of questions.
>
> It is always better to give a guided tour to ano
FINALLY!!! A rational approach to the issue.
If NANOG is to continue as a robust and vital organization, we cannot
afford to be nasty to newcomers.
If NANOG is to die, we can continue arbitrary nastiness and
restrictions on simple asking of questions.
It is always better to give a guide
(argh,mail list ... grr, wrong address...)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Christopher Morrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather see a clueful response here to an occasionally newbie-ish
> > question than the
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> We don't see many of these questions on NANOG (as opposed to others
> lists where they're a daily occurence). I think if they're as sporadic
> as they appear to be, that what we saw today -- a handful of answers
> including pointers for further readyin
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:20:08PM -0400, Donald Stahl wrote:
> Do you walk up to a master carpenter and ask him to teach you everything
> he knows without so much as doing a little research first? Of course not.
> Do you throw together a network without reading a manual and then demand
> that t
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 p
Donald Stahl wrote:
>> By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
>> current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
I gotta agree with Rob. The current discussion looks like nothing but
two overgrown sarcastic children having a whining contest.
> The original que
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
> current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
BS. This is relevant discussion - there are numerous other fora out
there, and there's constant discussion about what NANOG's borders should
be
> By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
> current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
Rob,
The messages in question were posted to NANOG not -futures. The thread was
moved here by Randy to avoid further pollution of the main list and to
solicit feedback fr
By charter nothing is off-topic on -futures, but that doesn't mean the
current content is not a ridiculous waste of time.
Congratulations to both of you.
---Rob
Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> then you are at a loss. we were all younger and
> then you are at a loss. we were all younger and less all-knowing once
> upon a time. the book from which i learned unix was named laura
> freedman, as there were no printed ones, other than man pages, at the
> time. if she was as unhelpful as some folk here, i might not be
> bothering you toda
> You honestly, truly believe that "how do I add two default routes to
> FreeBSD" is a relevant question on this mailing list? You honestly,
> truly believe that doing technical support for someone who doesn't
> understand MTU issues and who clearly hasn't bothered to try looking for
> an answer on
>> Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that someone asking about
>> how to set up 2 default routes on a FreeBSD box is operationally or
>> technically relevant to the NANOG community at large?
>
You honestly, truly believe that "how do I add two default routes to
FreeBSD" is a relevant
[ moved to futures ]
> Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that someone asking about
> how to set up 2 default routes on a FreeBSD box is operationally or
> technically relevant to the NANOG community at large?
no. because, due to our diversity (which i think is a good thing),
nothing
38 matches
Mail list logo
