It doesn't matter who wrote:
> If you don't find network operations to be relevant,
then by all
> means STOP POSTING TO THE GOD DAMNED NETWORK OPERATIONS
MAILING LIST.
> Some of those, particularly those who *gasp* run
networks, still find
> it relevent. If there is this much disagreement about
your posts,
> maybe you should find a different place to make them.
In spite of repeated rants like this one (I'm too tired and
lazy to
disguise the author of it further, the particular author
here is not
important), the problem is not "What kind of list is
NANOG?" It really
isn't. I don't think a strong case that many active
posters here are
confused about that it really hard to make. There really
ought to be a
moratorium on the question of what kind of a list is NANOG.
The question has always been, in my my mind, "What the
hell does
"Operations" mean to the participants here. (I
have on several
occasions said what I think it means to others, I'll spare
me the agony
of doing that again just now.)
I have for years incorrectly assumed (nay, insisted) that
"Operations
topics" include just about everything that has to do
with operating a
network or networks, or network of networks.
I don't think it includes the mindless, repetitive, numbing
harassment
of somebody that has an issue affecting his or her operation
that either
needs help, or wants to share a lesson learned.
Frankly, a scholarly analysis of the archives (edited or
not) would
show, I'll bet, that there are more items about what is on
topic than
there are about any other subject-group.
--
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
http://members.c
ox.net/larrysheldon/
|