[79794] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AUP for NANOG?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Gregers Bilse)
Fri Apr 15 04:47:23 2005
From: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse@networksignature.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:46:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200504140922.27290.scott@fctenterprises.com>
To: Scott Grayban <scott@fctenterprises.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Apr 14, 9:22am, Scott Grayban <scott@fctenterprises.com> wrote:
> The more bashing I hear here the less I want to ask a question here.
> I'm not stupid but I am worried that one question might spark a rash of flames back at me.
>
> This is a newbies point of view.
Thanks for braving it.-)
It would be interesting if we knew the newbie:bully:oldie ratio on NANOG.
As an oldie, I would rather see "clueless" newbie questions as opposed to
contentless rants and posturing, and I don't believe any kind of "edge" vs
"core" split of NANOG is good. Networking is end-to-end, and what is
needed is a "tech" vs "non-tech" split.
In the old days we had a list called com-priv which effectively worked as
the non-tech counterpart; anything to do with domain names, law suits,
business practices, peering politics, legislation and regulation, etc,
etc, etc would go on com-priv. Many, if not most, people subscribed to
both lists, but kept things separate in their heads and in their postings.
That didn't mean NANOG was a panacea for newbies, but just getting today's
S/N ratio under control would be of great help.
-- Per
