NANOG-futures

[Pete Templin]

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 messages" as the boundary - we've had messages that were far 
better served by user-oriented (rather than operator-oriented) resources.

 > And we have collectively expended more human effort discussing this
 > than was expended in providing the responses.

That's not the point: the point is to define NANOG, something that too 
many people have brought up, and too many others have shot down.  I'm 
trying to get _some_ definition to it, because I think it's worthwhile.

But if it's going to dissolve to a scenario where I get flamed for 
trying to discuss something (again), I can always go hide under a rock 
for a while (that's the "shut up" portion of RS's instructions to me).

pt

_______________________________________________
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures