[87492] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: #nanog: was Re: http://weblog.disgu.st down
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Wed Dec 21 17:42:19 2005
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:41:54 +0100
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <43A9BB5A.1030106@corenap.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:30:18PM -0600, Albert Meyer wrote:
> I'd like to see a useful #nanog where network operators could chat.
That channel does exist but is not NANOG-related. Some #nanog folks who
do want to finally chat on-topic hang out there. Quote from one of them:
"dude, this is prolly the most on topic IRC channel I was ever in". :-)
Fortunately, even with currently almost 200 folks in it, there is enough
self discipline to stay mostly on topic.
> I looked around at the various IRC networks and freenode looks OK.
> They bind channels to organizations, so #nanog could be bound to NANOG;
> this would allow the channel to be rescued if it got lost. Does anyone
> agree that this would be a good idea?
Who cares about organizations when it comes to exchange a few words
between operators?
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
